A Secret Tax on TeenagersYou get your rebate check today. Your kid pays the tax bill later.
Updated Saturday, May 31, 2008, at 7:45 AM ET
Britain's chancellor of the exchequer, Alistair Darling, did something rather strange recently to baffling applause from his own supporters and cries of "bribery" from the opposition: He announced a tax on teenagers.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponDarling's plan is to cut income taxes temporarily for all but the most prosperous taxpayers. The apparent windfall is £120 each—almost $230. If that sounds familiar, it isn't surprising: A similar plan is already in motion in the United States, where a temporary "tax rebate" began to arrive in the bank accounts of a grateful nation about a month ago. The motivations are different in the British case. While the U.S. plan is billed as an economic stimulus, the British plan is marketed as compensation for those who lost out when taxes on some low earners were recently raised. No matter, because the practical impact of both plans is just the same: Teenagers are getting it in the shorts.
Here's why: Since neither the U.K. nor U.S. government intends to alter its spending plans, these tax holidays will be funded by government borrowing, borrowing that must eventually be repaid. That will require taxes to go up in the future or not to fall when they otherwise might.
Who should celebrate? Not the typical taxpayer, that is for sure. The tax cut makes no difference to her. Say her rebate check is $600; if she had wanted an extra $600 right now, she could already have it in her pocket, either by borrowing the money or by withdrawing it from savings. If she did that, of course, she would later have to pay $600 back plus interest. But that is exactly what some future administration will be demanding to repay government debt. Or, to look at it another way, the rational taxpayer should save the $600 windfall now, keeping it to pay the higher taxes that are surely on the horizon.
Whichever way you look at it, both the U.S. and U.K. governments are handing their citizens cash that was borrowed—and the citizens themselves are liable for the debt. If my bank manager arranged a surprise loan in my name and handed me the cash, I might feel pampered or put-upon, depending on whether I was planning to take out the loan myself anyway. Either way, doubt I would feel any richer.
Of course, some people should count themselves wealthier after the tax cut. Anyone expecting to die without making a bequest should be pleased: If the Grim Reaper knocks on the door before the IRS does, he can spend the tax rebate now and leave the bill for some other sucker.
Who will be the fall guy? We don't know for sure because we can't say whom a future government will tax. But an obvious candidate would be today's teenagers, very few of whom pay income tax today but most of whom will pay income tax in the next few years. Their best hope is that their grandparents add the tax windfall to their bequests rather than blowing the money on a weekend in the sun.
The idea that a debt-funded tax cut makes little difference to anybody is called "Ricardian equivalance" after David Ricardo, one of the founders of modern economics. The equivalence is between government taxes and government borrowing. However government spending is funded, it generates a bill that will come due sooner or later. Far-sighted taxpayers will immediately take note.
Clearly, there are reasons why some taxpayers might care whether taxes arrive today, or tomorrow with interest. Even so, these tax gimmicks matter much less than we might think. It is current government spending, not current government taxation, that is the real measure of a government's size.
Empirical economists are still arguing over whether Ricardian equivalence roughly holds, but one study by Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod concluded that most U.S. citizens used a the 2001 tax windfall to pay off their debts, leaving more money available to pay future taxes—Ricardian equivalence in action.
That suggests that as consumers and taxpayers, we aren't fooled by these games of three-card Monte. Are we fooled as voters? Alistair Darling obviously hopes so.
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Comments from the Fray
This debt is not unfair or burdensome. We are paying a debt right now and nobody thinks this debt is unfair or burdensome, at least nobody not stupid. We are paying for all the wars that this country has fought. We are paying for all the roads and bridges this country has built. We are paying for all the regulations, research, prisons, welfare, and all the government costs of the past. And we're not crushed by that debt. In fact, we're going right ahead and having a nice little war of our very own right now. No debt of the past is stopping us from having our war and no debt we leave to our children will stop them from doing what they deem just.
We benefit from the past, enormously. We should pay a debt for those benefits. Had they not 'burdened' us with debt, we would still be living in the horse and buggy era.
--Nerdnam
(To reply, click here)
Reply to Nerdnam: To the extent that past debt paid for wars that most people think were necessary (and almost all Americans, with the exception of people like Pat Buchanan, think that World War II was necessary), you are right that sensible people would not object. Nor would sensible people object to building roads and bridges, or paying for scientific research, or even to building prisons (but why does America incarcerate a much higher percentage of our population than any other country in the world?) But why not pay for such projects out of current tax revenues, since presumably the current generation benefits from these programs? In the past seven years, however, the increase in the debt has primarily gone to pay for tax cuts for those Americans who are extremely wealthy. Have they been using the largesse to pay for roads, prisons, or scientific research? Negative: they have been laughing all the way to the bank, buying items of conspicuous consumption, like $28000 umbrella stands, $1000 omelettes, million dollar yachts and palatial homes. The retailers that have been doing well in this economy are the Neiman Marcuses and Saks Fifth Avenues of the world, while mainstream middle-class retailers like Sears and J.C. Penney's are in deep trouble. Sensible people do object to these kinds of policies, and to the debt that results from them, and to the burden that will impose on our young.
--LeRoy was here
(To reply, click here)
(6/2)