Big Government Cripples Incentives to Save, Promotes Risky Culture of Immediate Gratification
America’s political elite is nauseating for many reasons, but perhaps most of all when they blame others for problems that are caused by misguided government policies. A stark example is the way they attacked the Facebook billionaire who moved to Singapore because of punitive taxation and class‐warfare policy.
Today, let’s look at an example that affects almost everybody rather than just a handful of rich people. Many people in Washington sanctimoniously say that American households and businesses are too focused on the short term and that we don’t save enough.
But as I explain in this CBNC interview, tax and spending policies from Washington have undermined the incentive to save.
Allow me to elaborate on three of my examples.
Good politicians would respond by copying Australia and reforming Social Security. But good politicians are like unicorns.
2. Or look at this chart showing the extensive double taxation in our tax code, as well as these international comparisons of how America over‐taxes dividends and capital gains.
Good politicians would respond by junking the tax code and adopting a flat tax, which has no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. But good politicians are like the Loch Ness Monster.
3. And consider the fact that the Obama Administration has just imposed a regulation that will discourage foreigners from depositing money in American banks, thus driving capital from the U.S. economy.
Good politicians would minimize the damage of anti‐savings policies by keeping America a haven for foreign capital. But good politicians are like Bigfoot.
The moral of the story, just in case you haven’t picked up on the theme, is that bad things happen because politicians can’t resist expanding the burden of government when they should be doing the opposite. Which is why this poster is funny, but in a painful way.
P.S. I should have mentioned that some politicians think that we can boost savings by imposing a value‐added tax! This is not only a perverse example of Mitchell’s law, but it’s also completely illogical.
A VAT does not change the incentive to save since current consumption and future consumption are equally taxed. But it does reduce the amount of money people have, thus reducing both private consumption and private savings.
Statists would argue that a new tax will reduce the budget deficit and thus reduce the amount of private savings that is being used to finance government debt. That’s only true, though, if you’re naive enough to think politicians won’t spend the new revenue. Good luck with that.
