top of page

"CAPITAL"

The Flat Tax Promises To Aid Businesses and People

By: Stuart Wm. Marsh

President, Genesee Capital, Inc.

March 29, 1996

  A flat income tax for individuals will be simpler and more fair, will provide a significant tax cut and will prevent future tax increases. That may be wonderful for individuals, but what impact will all this have on business?
 
  The answer: an enormous impact, all of which is positive.
 
  Businesses exist because people buy things from them. People buy things with after-tax dollars. Cutting taxes and preventing future tax increases will allow people to keep more of their money. There are only two things you can do with money: spend it and save it. If the money is spent, businesses will be better off because their revenues will increase. If the money is saved, businesses will be better off because the supply of capital used to finance their growth and expansion will increase.
 
  Assume that the tax cut that results from implementing the flat tax reduces overall individual income taxes by $125 billion per year. While this is a staggering sum, it represents only 7.6 percent of this year's proposed $1.64 trillion federal budget.
 
  With approximately 250 million people living in the United States, this tax cut translates to $500 per person, or $2,000 for each family of four. While this may not seem like a significant amount to some people, it is significant to many others. Moreover, the tax cuts embedded in this flat tax are highly skewed to those individuals who need the money the most: families of four earning less than $34,000 per year.
 
  This tax cut is not a one-time event; it is designed to be permanent. This means that an additional $125 billion per year, every year from now on, instead of going to the government, will flow into businesses, savings accounts, stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
 
The simplification aspect of the flat tax provides yet another tangible benefit. Joel Slemrod, an economist at the University of Michigan, has estimated that the cost of complying with our current tax system is at least $75 billion per year. With the flat tax, virtually all of these costs would disappear, freeing up an additional $75 billion every year, which taxpayers could use more wisely to buy things they need or save for their future.
 
  Government very often becomes involved in inefficient or unproductive tasks. Why? Because it can. How? Because it wields the awesome power to levy taxes.
 
  Capital flows to its highest and best use; businesses clamor for capital with the promise of using it to its highest economic benefit. But the government can step in, through its power of taxation, and take that capital for political benefit, regardless of economic benefit. While a business attempts to create value with the capital it employs, government often ends up destroying capital.
 
  When was the last time you were directly (and positively) affected by the U.S. Department of Energy? How about the U.S. Department of Education? The U.S. Department of Commerce? Look at the billions of dollars poured into these agencies every year. Where is the benefit from these dollars? I don't know, but here is an example of some of the costs.

  During the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s, government statisticians concluded that the price of oil would reach $50 per barrel, and that gas would exceed $5 per gallon. As a result, politicians proclaimed that the American way of life was over unless government stepped in and resolved this "breakdown'' of the free market. Thus, the Department of Energy was created.
 
  The federal government never considered the fact that human beings are rational creatures, and that they would alter their behavior accordingly. Consumers reduced the demand for oil and gas through conservation, producers increased the supply of oil and gas through exploration and drilling, and business responded by producing more fuel-efficient automobiles and machinery.
 
  What did the Department of Energy do? It poured billions and billions of dollars into the development of "synthetic'' fuels, primarily oil derived from shale. This shale-oil project was a total failure and was shut down. It would have been far more efficient for the taxpayers to throw all the money spent on the shale-oil project into a big hole, pour some precious gasoline on it and set it ablaze.
 
  While the money would have been destroyed whether by burning it or by spending it on shale-oil, burning it ourselves would have been more efficient because there would be no bureaucrats being paid to regulate, supervise and oversee the process.
 
  Today, the price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, is the lowest it has ever been, and the U.S. Department of Energy is still operating. What do those bureaucrats do all day? Probably write policy papers and position reports, all well-researched and thoroughly documented, and all a complete waste of money.
 
  Compare the money squandered on these government activities with how individuals and private enterprise use money.
 
  Assume that the $2,000 tax cut mentioned earlier would be achieved by eliminating inefficient and unproductive government programs. A choice now exists: Implement the tax cut, or have the government collect the taxes and spend them on these inefficient and unproductive programs. Without the tax cut, your $2,000 would be worth $0 today. 
 
  Conversely, if the tax cut had been enacted just last year, the taxpayer could have taken that $2,000 and invested it in the stock market. Your $2,000 would be worth approximately $2,700 today.
 
  With a relatively fixed supply of capital, we need to make a choice. Do we want to use this scarce resource to finance government, or use it to finance the engines of our economy?
 
  The flat tax would divert huge sums of money away from unproductive and inefficient government programs, and toward the purchase of goods and services from businesses and increased investment in the capital stock of our country. While there may be some short-run pain - which our politicians are loath to create - in the future we will enjoy lower interest rates, lower inflation and faster economic growth. And I am very concerned about the future: I intend to spend the rest of my life there.

 

bottom of page