The Vat Cometh
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 26, 2010
WASHINGTON -- As the night follows the day, the VAT cometh.
With the passage of Obamacare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable.
We are now $8 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade. Obamacare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks -- the unfunded $200 billion-plus doctor fix, the double counting of Medicare cuts, the 10-6 sleight-of-hand (counting 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outflows) -- is at minimum a $2 trillion new entitlement.
It will vastly increase the debt. But even if it were revenue-neutral, Obamacare pre-empts and appropriates for itself the best and easiest means of reducing the existing deficit. Obamacare's $500 billion of cuts in Medicare and $600 billion in tax hikes are no longer available for deficit reduction. They are siphoned off for the new entitlement of insuring the uninsured.
This is fiscally disastrous because, as President Obama himself explained last year in unveiling his grand transformational policies, our unsustainable fiscal path requires control of entitlement spending, the most ruinous of which is out-of-control health care costs.
Obamacare was sold on the premise that, as Nancy Pelosi put it, "health care reform is entitlement reform. Our budget cannot take this upward spiral of cost." But the bill enacted on Tuesday accelerates the spiral: It radically expands Medicaid (adding 15 million new recipients/dependents) and shamelessly raids Medicare by spending on a new entitlement the $500 billion in cuts and the yield from the Medicare tax hikes.
Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody's is warning that the Treasury's AAA rating is in jeopardy, that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.
Hence his deficit reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections.
What will it recommend? What can it recommend? Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation.
But this won't be nearly enough. As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health care costs -- which are now locked in place by the new Obamacare mandates.
That's where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude -- if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion).
It's the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent.
American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.
Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama's triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan's strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes -- then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.
Obama's strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first -- which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.
And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.
As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.
Ultimately, even that won't be enough. As the population ages and health care becomes increasingly expensive, the only way to avoid fiscal ruin (as Britain, for example, has discovered) is health care rationing.
It will take a while to break the American populace to that idea. In the meantime, get ready for the VAT. Or start fighting it.
10 comments:
I support the VAT, as does Bruce Bartlett, author of "The New American Economy" and former co-author of Reagan's tax cuts.
President Obama was greeted with massive, growing deficits (an entirely different circumstance than GWB found), structural in nature. After returning to Clinton era top marginal rates (39.6%) there is little room to get more revenue from the top end. While I would increase the AMT floor on high incomes, we have largely reached the point beyond which we will get diminishing returns. So - how to reconcile revenues with our existing entitlements?
The VAT. Krauthammer is right - he just needs to learn to like it.
sorry other side of the fence as usual...putting more tax's on everyone is not the answer, unless you want to see tax rates at 55-70% like they used to be...how about cutting government, government spending by 50% and cutting tax rates by 25%...my bet is that companies and the world would flock to the US and revenues would fill the tanks of government...would they learn...hell no they would turn around and screw it up just like they have screwed up everything they put their hands on, and by the way health care will be no different...want to place a little cash on that Baxter...I say the cost of this HC will skyrocket by 35%...how much do you want to loose
As I have said before Riegel, if you don't raise taxes you will need to ELIMINATE Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and you will STILL HAVE A DEFICIT! So - if you are advocating we eliminate all entitlements rather than raise the revenues, good luck getting elected on that platform.
Taxes will need to move significantly up - preferably through the VAT - just to pay for what we have come to expect. If you oppose new taxes, you are honor bound to say just what MASSIVE CUTS you would make. That is the honest choice and not one Republican has copped to that, save for Alan Simpson and he is no longer in office...
Baxter you can raise tax's to 100% of what everyone earns...in other words just send in all your money, and you still will not cover the problems in SS/MC and Medicade...they total up to around 60 trillion...so maybe we have to reduce some of the benefits, but growing government to be out of control in every regard you can think of is not the answer...just look at their retirement benefits...they are unbelievable...the problem is that the world is hooked together now...someone farts in Spain and we all smell the results...what I am say is the US needs to spit itself out of this system and become the leader in reducing government, tax's etc..like I said before when you give people more money to spend the revenue will go up...tax the crap out of them and make them dependent on the government programs for survival and you are in trouble...but knowing you I am sure you have already purchased your brown shirt
Al -
It is the right wingers that wear the brown shirts...
As Arthur Laffer says, there are two income tax rates that bring in zero revenue: 0 and 100%. The most efficient number - that which will raise the most revenue - is somewhere in between. It depends on the circumstances, one rate does not fit best at all times. The ideal rate will fluctuate, depending on many factors including what is going with in the economy.
President Clinton had a very successful rate structure, with a top rate of 39.6%. GWB came in, cut that rate and others, and dropped federal revenues from 20% of GDP to 17%. That difference is huge and is part of the reason that we have $10T of debt today.
Our economy can easily pay for Medicare and Social Security. The Europeans have done it for 60 years. Are they just that much better than us? Of course not - we simply need to raise about 25%/GDP to pay for the government that we receive and to pay down debt that the supply-siders ran up.
I give up you and I would never agree on anything including todays weather which was 72 degrees
My thermometer showed 73...
:)
I swear!!!
25% for what? The europeans?
The crap that comes out of you, you really believe it or just stirring the pot?
25% until? Then 30%, then...
At what point to you and your ilk say, let's stop the growth of government?
Jim - I absolutely believe it. We need to reconcile our spending and our income. I take a responsible and courageous position, unlike by favorite physician who throws out platitudes about cutting spending but is never specific and apparently does not understand the US budget.
To use one of your favorite terms, you are in denial. Unless you advocate eliminating Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and billions more in spending, you cannot balance the budget without significant added revenue. We have a structural deficit .
So - if you aren't ready to eliminate those programs that Americans strongly support, you have to be HONEST and acknowledge the need to massively raise revenues. You and Bruce Bartlett started at the same place philosophically, he adjusted his views based upon the facts. You won't even read his excellent book - your ignorance on the subject is intentional.
So - when you get tired of treading water in that river in Egypt - lets talk revenue! If the GOP is smart, they will recognize this reality and influence the form of the taxes to come. Or, they can sit it out and let the Democrats do the heavy lifting. Tax hikes (and cuts) are routinely handled through reconciliation...
Post a Comment