FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford - Why a tax cut just isn’t fair on teenagers

Tim Harford, aka The Undercover Economist, loves to expose the overlooked effects of governments’ economic policies. For example, both the United States and the UK have recently announced tax cut and rebate plans aimed at putting hundreds of dollars back into the hands of taxpayers, with the hope that households will spend their “free money” from the government, giving the national economies a much needed boost in a time of economic slowdown.

Expansionary fiscal policy, as such a tax cut is known, is a popular tool in times of macroeconomic slowdowns. The hope, of course, is that taxpayers who experience sudden fiscal relief will rejoice upon their newfound disposable income, spending it on goods and services, creating new income for various sectors of the economy, which in turn will be spent on more goods and services. In economics, we call this the “multiplier effect”, the idea being that a certain tax cut (say $150 billion), will ultimately create some multiple of that amount in new spending and income throughout the economy as a whole.

In reality, however, house holds do not spend 100% of a tax rebate or tax cut like those recently passed in the US and the UK. When disposable income increases, household will spend a certain proportion and save or pay off past debts with the rest. The proportion of new income spent is determined by an individual’s marginal propensity to consume, and the proportion saved is based on his or her marginal propensity to save. The greater proportion of additional income that is spent, the larger the multiplier effect in the economy as a whole, and the greater impact expansionary fiscal policy will have towards achieving growth in the economy.

Policy makers, therefore, prefer households spend, rather than save, new income from a tax cut or rebate. According to the Undercover Economist, however, saving a tax rebate is precisely what smart households will do. Why? Because of the basic economic truth learned in the first week of most principles of economics courses: There’s no such thing as a free lunch! Tim Harford explains:

…since neither the UK nor US governments plans 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. If she – assume she is British – had wanted an extra £120 right now, she could already have it in her pocket, either by withdrawing it from savings or by borrowing the money. If she did that, of course, she would later have to repay £120 plus interest. But that is exactly what Darling’s successor as chancellor will require of her. To look at it another way, the rational taxpayer should save the £120 windfall now, keeping it to pay the higher taxes that are surely on the horizon.

A tax rebate financed through government borrowing does not make American or British households any better off. Imagine a scenario where your buddy is experiencing some financial difficulties (maybe he’s lost his job, maybe he’s experienced an expensive injury and has no health insurance…), so you decide you’ll help him out by throwing some cash his way. The catch is, you’re already in debt and have spent more in the last couple of years than your actual income should have allowed. So, in order to help your buddy out, you actually need to borrow money from him. So you give him an IOU, he scrounges up the little cash he can find, gives it to you for the IOU, and you turn around and give it back to him to “help him out.” You can imagine, your buddy is not very thankful and certainly doesn’t feel any richer.

On the macro level, the cash mailed out to American households as part of the recent stimulus package came from new borrowing by the government from American households. All those IOUs issued to finance the stimulus must be paid back, and must be done so through future tax increases. The government has chosen to forgo future spending in order to stimulate current spending. Not everyone should dismay, however, as a certain lucky group will clearly benefit from today’s debt-financed fiscal stimulus packages:

…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 taxman 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 who a future government will tax. But an obvious candidate would be today’s teenagers, very few of whom are paying income tax right now, but most of whom will pay it 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.

A tax cut today almost certainly implies a tax increase tomorrow. Since teenagers enjoy almost none of the tax cuts today, but will bear the future increases required to pay back new debt, it is you, my students, who should be most opposed to the shortsighted policies being undertaken by US and UK policy-makers.

Clinton thinks suspending the gas tax for the summer is good for Americans. She says that any revenue lost can be made up for by taxing the profits of oil companies.

Obama thinks it will cause more harm than good to the economy. He says the $9 billion of government revenue foregone could have done more good for the economy through job creation and road maintenance than the $25 each American driver will save with a suspension of the gas tax.

They’re both using their positions on the gas tax to garner more support among Democratic voters in Indiana and North Carolina, where next week’s key primaries will be held.

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economist, has this to say about Hillary’s plan:

I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal. More common is the reaction of a friend of mine (a veteran of the Clinton administration) who calls the idea “ludicrous.”

Sometimes a candidate’s position on one particular issue, even a relatively minor one like a federal gas tax that most Americans probably didn’t even know they were paying when they filled up their tanks, draws clear lines around a candidate’s values.

Clinton’s ‘Trouble’ ad

Obama Takes On Clinton and McCain on Gas Tax Holiday

It should be noted that while Obama is probably right that a gas tax suspension will only save drivers a pittance, his economics is slightly flawed. Here’s Tim Haab of Environmental Economics blog responding to Obama’s claim that a gas tax holiday could actually increase demand for gas thus raise gas prices:

Wrong, wrong, wrong: A lower gas price causes quantity demanded to increase as consumers move down the demand curve. The only things that cause gas demand to change are changes in income, prices of substitutes and complements, tastes and preferences and expectations… I demand a retraction.

Who are these “some economists” that Obama is talking about? Did they get their degrees from an SEC school or something? Name names so that we can have an econoblogosphere beatdown! Out these blasphemers!

Note: I think Obama got the $25 to $30 number correct.

Mr. Haab is technically correct when it comes to basic economic theory. Repealing the gas tax should shift supply out, not demand, as taxes are a determinant of supply. Rather than demand changing, quantity demanded by drivers will increase, in response to the increased supply and lower prices.

What I do think could happen, however, is that expectations of future price increases might incentivize drivers to increase their demand for gas over the summer. This Mr. Haab seems to oversee. When August roles around and drivers know that come Labor day the gas tax will kick in again, they may chose to take a family road trip that they otherwise would have postponed, shifting overall demand for gas out, driving prices up.

In the case of a temporary suspension of an excise tax on any good, there is always the expectation that the price will increase again in the future. This could lead to hoarding or stockpiling of the good, increasing overall demand and driving the price up before the tax has even returned.

As Clinton Seeks Gas Tax Break for Summer, Obama Says No - New York Times

Times are tough for American consumers. Rising food and fuel prices have increased the proportion of household incomes that must be allocated towards these two necessities, both for which demand is highly inelastic, meaning that as their prices rise, the quantity demanded by consumers remains relatively high.

In response to the pinching of Americans’ pocketbooks, two presidential candidates are advocating action at the federal level.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season.

Sounds like a good idea, right? If Americans are finding it burdensome to pay more at the pump, and the government can do something to relieve that burden, why shouldn’t they do it?

Let’s do a little calculation here: At 18.4 cents per gallon, how much per fill-up will Americans save?

I drive a ‘94 Toyota pick-up, has a 15 gallon tank and gets notoriously poor mileage. I’ll save $2.76 per tank of gas I buy. I usually fill up my truck about once a week during the summer, meaning I’ll save that much each week. McCain wants to suspend the gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day, or for a total of about 12 weeks. If Clinton and McCain get their way, I could very well save as much as $33.12 this year! ASTOUNDING!! What a deal for Americans!

Clearly, repealing the gas tax will have only a minor impact on disposable incomes in America. Obama seems to understand this better than the other candidates:

Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports…

Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a “short-term, quick-fix” proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges.

The decision to suspend or not suspend federal gas taxes is essentially a cost-benefit decision. The benefit? Well, apparently around $30 per driver, or about half a tank of gas, compliments of the US government. The cost? Read on…

The highway trust fund that the gas tax finances provides money to states and local governments to pay for road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.

There you have it; $9 billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs that won’t be created in order to put half a tank of gas in each American’s car, which if you think about it, will only lead to Americans driving more this summer. Repealing the gas tax may actually induce Americans who weren’t planning road trips to go ahead and take one, increasing the overall demand for gas and driving the price up to the level it would have been with the tax.

And what about the much needed government revenue the tax creates? Hillary has another plan for recouping that loss:

Mrs. Clinton would replace that money with the new tax on oil company profits, an idea that has been kicking around Congress for several years but has not been enacted into law. Mr. McCain would divert tax revenue from other sources to make the highway trust fund whole.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton needs a refresher course in basic microeconomics. If she had paid attention in AP Economics (did she even take AP Econ?), Clinton would know that a tax on producers of a highly inelastic good such as oil can be passed almost entirely onto the consumers. In this case, the oil companies, when faced with additional federal taxes on profits, will respond by restricting output, which reduces overall supply in oil market, raising the price of the main input for gasoline. Higher input costs for gasoline refineries will reduce overall supply of gasoline, increasing the price paid by consumers at the pump, negating any price-reduction induced by the suspension of the gas tax.

Ultimately, all taxes are borne by the consumers of an inelastic product: gasoline in this case. Whether the tax is levied on drivers directly, or the oil companies “upstream” in the production process, the outcome is the same: supply is restricted and price is higher.

The suspension of a gas tax that only costs Americans $30 over 3 months appears to impose a much greater cost to society than benefit. At least Obama seems to understand the basic economic reasoning behind this fact.

Obama on State Gas Tax Suspension

Shanghai American School Economics Student Blog » You Hate Taxes, I Hate Taxes… Let’s Hug- by Alice Su

I’m repeatedly amazed at the intelligence and maturity of the young economists here at Shanghai American School. After only nine months of econ instruction, these students already know more about sound economic policy than politicians of 40 years! Case in point: SAS senior Alice Su offers an stinging critique of John McCain’s proposed tax plan over at the SAS Economists Blog. Read below…

It’s easy to see how politics and sound economic policy may not mix very well; in fact, trying to put the two together usually ends up in contradiction and confusion that puts economically concerned voters in great distress. (Example: Remember that one econ class when Welker was talking about taxes, trying to decide if he was more liberal or conservative, and then got so agitated that Jeff said “You’re having a midlife crisis” and Welker threw a smartboard marker at him yelling “I’M 29!!”? Case in point. :P)

In this case, McCain’s speech about his economic policies on Tuesday contains so many contradictions, both with classroom economic theory and various parts of his own policy platform, that I find myself questioning whether he is taking a solid stance on the economy at all, or is simply trying to say whatever will appeal to his audience the most.

First, McCain’s economic plan, dripping with supply-side sentiment, is centered around a series of tax cuts. In addition to making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, he also calls for cutting corporate taxes, phasing out the alternative minimum tax, doubling the value of exemptions for each dependent to $7,000 from $3,500, and giving people the option of using a simpler, shorter tax form. As a finishing tax-cut touch,

One of Mr. McCain’s tax proposals would take effect even before the Republican Convention: he called on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day. Mr. McCain said that doing so would provide “an immediate economic stimulus,” but some environmentalists said that the change might encourage more people to use their cars, while Mr. McCain has made combating global warming central to his campaign.

Hmm. Here’s where the first hints of contradiction kick in. Besides the conflict between wanting to end global warming and yet encouraging more cars on the road, we’ve all studied the Laffer Curve, and I think I can speak for all the SAS Economists when I say that the U.S. Economy is not at a place where further tax cuts will lead to an increase in tax revenue or benefit the economy. Furthermore, what about the enormous budget deficit that Mr. Bush has so graciously left us with? As the author of this article discreetly points out, McCain seems to have forgotten that he previously promised to balance the budget by the end of the first term; rather than offer the economic stimulus that McCain is claiming it will, the tax cuts would probably just plunge the nation deeper into debt.

What answers do McCain’s economic policy have to offer these questions? Well, he also proposes a one-year freeze on most “increases in discretionary spending” while he reviews every federal program, department, and agency… with the exception of spending on the military. Supposedly, the money saved from eliminating earmarks as well as getting rid of unnecessary “discretionary spending” will add up to $100 billion annually, and that is how McCain says he will pay for the lowered business taxes. However, he neglected to address the issue of all the money being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether any of that might be categorized as unnecessary “discretionary spending”, or whether we should be spending anything over there in the first place.

An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think tank, estimated that the overall cost of Mr. McCain’s tax cuts would be three times as much as the $100 billion he estimates that he can save. And they questioned whether his programs would really save $100 billion a year.

While I’m not saying anything in support of Obama or Clinton’s economic policies, McCain’s plan seems so shaky that I would think twice before buying into how he’s going to save our country. Personally- especially since this tax-cut-focused speech was given on the day of the deadline for filing taxes- it looks to me like another plan designed for the purpose of politics, and not with sound economic policy in mind.

Wednesday’s class this week was one of my favorite of the year. Why? We got to talk taxes. Oh my goodness, you say, what’s wrong with Welker? How could he actually enjoy talking about taxes? As I said at the beginning of class, there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

For most people, taxes are a dismal subject, to say the least. But for teachers of economics, especially in this presidential election year, taxes make for an exciting economic, political and philosophical debate.

The premise of our discussion in class was the idea put forth by Arthur Laffer nearly 30 years ago towards the beginning of the Regan administration: that if the government would cut taxes on businesses and households, the incentive to invest and work would increase so much that gains in total output and income would be such that the government’s tax revenue might actually increase, despite the tax cut! Cutting taxes on the wealthy would have the greatest positive effect, however, since it’s the wealthy who do most of the investing and much of the spending in the economy.

This basic philosophy underpinned the tax cuts the wealthy enjoyed during Regan’s presidency, and again during George W. Bush’s term in 2001 and 2003. The debate about whether taxes cuts made by the current president is one at the heart of the Democratic/Republican divide today.

Watch the videos below, then answer the questions that follow:

First, the Democratic view:

Then the Republican view:

Discussion questions:

1. Why do Obama and Clinton promise that if they’re elected we’ll “go back to the tax rates we had before President Bush”?
2. What is McCain’s criticism of Obama’s view on taxes?
3. What do you think about the “supply-side” argument that lower taxes will stimulate spending, growth, employment, and possibly even the amount of tax revenue collected by the government? Do you buy it?
4. Are you a “supply-sider” or more of a Keynesian when it comes to the role of government in the economy? What’s the difference?

This is a follow up to a recent post to this blog, Hey, what are you Laffing at? The relationship between tax rate and tax revenue

The unbearable lightness of being Martin Feldstein | Free exchange | Economist.com

Supply-side economics, advocated by most Republican politicians, including presidential candidate John McCain, places great emphasis on the idea that investment is the main engine of economic growth, price level stability, and low unemployment. To encourage firms to invest, government should play a minimal role in the economy; taxes should be sufficiently low to incentivize firms to invest, while at the same time government spending should be reduced to avoid crowding-out of private investment.

Without a healthy level of investment, a country’s capital stock wears out and is not replaced, raising costs of production and shifting short-run (and maybe even long-run) aggregate supply leftward. If investment remains sufficiently low, over time an economy’s output could even begin to shrink.

In the article below, The Economist’s Free Exchange explores the relationship between tax rates and long-run economic growth. The Economist takes the position of “supply-siders” who study the impact of tax rates on the level of output. The idea of supply-side economics is that lower taxes encourage more investment and thus higher growth rates.

Here’s the gist of the supply-side argument:

Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.

On the other hand…

…we find that a tax cut of one percent of GDP increases real output by approximately three percent over the next three years.

In the case of the Laffer Curve, which shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue, the article concludes that:

Tax cuts don’t exactly “pay for themselves”, but they also don’t diminish revenue after about two years. That is, after about two years, the government receives revenues equal to what it would have received at the higher rate, but taxpayers enjoy a lower burden. It is an important advance to discover that because cuts do lead to an immediate dip in revenue, they often inspire offsetting tax increases that retard the growth effect of the origina cut. Nevertheless, the effect of cuts on output is generally strong enough to bring revenue back to where it would have been otherwise.

Supply-side economics, folks. Understanding the effects of fiscal and monetary policies on not only aggregate demand, but on aggregate supply (both short-run and long-run) is a crucial skill in  answering AP free response questions.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A short walk on the supply side | Free exchange | Economist.com

The Economist’s Free Exchange Blog wrote this timely piece on supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve. I couldn’t have (in fact, I didn’t) explained this better myself!

“The basic reasoning behind the so-called “Laffer curve” is plain, uncontroversial, and by no means was discovered by Arthur Laffer. There is nothing to tax if no one produces anything. But taxes affect the return and therefore the motive to supply labour to economic production. An increase in the tax rate can reduce the pool of wealth to tax — the tax base — by reducing the supply of labour. No taxes, no revenue. Also, 100 percent tax rates, no revenue. Somewhere in between — exactly where depends on, among other things, the responsiveness of labour supply to after-tax wages — there will be a point at which an increase in rates delivers a decrease in revenue. If the tax rate is already past that point, a tax cut delivers more revenue.

…labour supply is just one of many ways in which an increase in tax rates may reduce the effective tax base. In addition to working less, individuals may alter their savings and investment patterns, bargain to shift more of their labour compensation to untaxable perks and benefits, move to a different tax jurisdiction, consume more tax-deductible goods, or simply hide income from the tax authorities.”

As Laffer’s model shows, at certain tax rates, a tax cut will lead to an increase in tax revenue. So how can policy makers be sure whether a country’s tax rate is at such a level? In America, where relatively high income earners pay around 35% tax, economists calculate that a tax cut of 10% would increase taxable income due to more labor and greater productivity, but indeed decrease overall tax revenue.

Conclusions? “Supply-siders” who advocate tax cuts need to look more carefully at where America is on the Laffer curve.

Republican politicians of late have exhibited a dismaying lack of respect for basic science, and it is not much of a surprise that many are also cavalier about fiscal economics. At current tax rates, new cuts will not “pay for themselves” in the short run. Emphasizing this point, however, does not begin to imply that raising tax rates is smart or harmless.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What McCain Could Do About Taxes - New York Times

McFlation?

John McCain admits that economics is not his strongest suit. He recently claimed that he  wished “interest rates were zero.” Perhaps the fallacy of this policy position is over his head, but I think there are at least 74 AP Econ students here in Shanghai who could explain to Mr. McCain the inflationary impact zero percent interest rates would have.

Regardless, the article above is not about interest rates (thankfully, interest rate and monetary policy decisions will never be his to make even if he does end up in the White House, granted Fed independence remains intact!), rather, tax policy, which would be within McCain’s powers as the designer of the US federal budget. Ben Stein, economist, actor, and humorist, writes a letter to Mr McCain offering his advice on tax policy. Continue Reading »

The Rutherford Institute: A Crisis in Democracy: Are We Going Bankrupt?- Commentary

Environmental Economics blogger John Whitehead wonders whether America is going bankrupt, and if so, what can be done to fix the problem.

According to our text, (McConnell and Brue’s “Economics, 17th ed.”), “The large U.S. public debt does not threaten to bankrupt the federal government, leaving it unable to meet its financial obligations. There are two main reasons why, refinancing and taxation.”

McConnell and Brue argue that when past debt comes due, the US government will always be able to pay its creditors (i.e. the US public, financial institutions, branches of the federal government, as well as foreign banks and citizens) by selling more debt certificates (securities) to others who have faith that the US will continue to meet its debt obligations in the future. This is the equivalent of paying off one credit card with another, incurring even more debt in order to pay off past debt.

However, in the case that the government ever finds it hard to issue new securities, either due to a loss of faith among investors in its ability to repay its debt, or fear of economic instability in US growth, it can always resort to the more drastic measure of actually increasing taxes and reducing spending on public goods, using taxpayers’ money to meet its debt obligations. For these reasons, conclude the textbook authors, the U.S. government is not at risk of bankruptcy.

Or, is it?

According to Whitehead:

The fact that our nation is nearing bankruptcy has become what David Walker, comptroller general of the United States, calls “the dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows.” Most politicians, says Walker, are aware of the impending financial crisis but reluctant to do anything about it. After all, it is not politically expedient to increase taxes or trim spending, but this is exactly what needs to be done…

Walker, who recently resigned after serving as the government’s chief internal watchdog for a decade, concludes that the nation’s “current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken.” But, as usual, when we leave the problem-solving to the politicians, what we end up with is bigger government, more bureaucracy and a larger federal deficit, which is projected to total $410 billion for 2008. (The national debt, which is the total amount of money owed by the government, is currently estimated to be over $9.2 trillion.)

We are living in a house of cards that’s on the verge of crashing around us, and yet most Americans remain oblivious and continue to spend beyond their means. But, as Reich notes, “That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.”

Whitehead believes Americans themselves need to reign in their spending, bringing their expenditures more in line with their incomes. If this is the path to individual financial security, then likewise it must hold true for the nation as a whole. What scares Whitehead more than the growing US public debt, however, is who holds that debt. Today, almost 30% of the $9.3 trillion owed by the US government is owed to foreigners.

According to economist James Galbraith, who Whitehead quotes, this puts to the test the very foundations of democracy, which in the past have relied on the relationship between America’s creditors (the holders of the debt) and the government itself. In 1945, almost all of America’s debt was held by Americans themselves, and the government acted in the interests of the American people. Today, the scales have tipped, and less than 10% of America’s debt is held by American citizens.

Galbraith concludes: “…the disappearance of the citizen-creditor forces a question. Can democracy survive when its financial roots have been cut? The scale of public debt is not the issue, but its ownership is. Can a country—whether the United States or any other—be truly democratic if it is in hock to banks and foreigners? …To put it bluntly, are we still a democracy? And, if not, what would it take to bring democracy back?”

We know what must be done.

First, we need to elect fiscally responsible representatives with the backbone to resist political pressure to spend what is not there. We also need to stop putting ourselves in hock to foreign banks and nations. And we need to put a stop to the financial hemorrhaging related to the Bush Administration’s war on terror. For example, over the past six years, the U.S. has disbursed to the corrupt government of Pakistan about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year. Yet according to the Washington Post, few receipts are provided to account for how the money is used or where it ends up. That’s just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that we spend at least $1 billion a week in Iraq on military operations alone. Just imagine how those dollars could be put to use in our own ailing economy.

Certainly a fiscally responsible government would result in security and freedom such as that enjoyed by fiscally responsible individuals, free of debt. But just like the fiscally responsible individual, who so responsibly pays off every credit card every month, getting into the habit of balancing a budget, especially when the budget starts out so woefully unbalanced, poses serious challenges. Here’s an example:

Imagine you’re an individual earning $100,000 a year. Great salary, right? Hold on, you also owe $75,000 in credit card debt. What is the first thing you’d do if you earned an extra $10,000 next year? Go buy a new car? How about take a vacation to Europe? No? Well, what then? Logically, you’d start paying off the $75,000 debt, with the goal of becoming debt free sometime down the road.

This is America today. We’re a country with a national income of $13.5 trillion, and a national debt of $9.3 trillion. Fortunately, 70% of that debt is held by Americans themselves, so we essentially owe ourselves $6.5 trillion. When this debt is repayed, it does not represent a loss of wealth from America, rather a transfer of wealth from Americans to Americans, neither diminishing nor enhancing our overall spending power.

However, every year the share of our debt held by foreigners grows. Today it is around $2.8 trillion, the repayment of which represents a transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners, making us poorer and them richer.

Tightening our fiscal belts may be tough now, but necessary to restore democracy and financial stability to our nation. This article by Whitehead makes some interesting arguments for steps the U.S. should take now to assure security and prosperity for future generations.

Discussion questions:

1. What do you think Whitehead and other economists who share his views think about the recent fiscal stimulus package passed by Washington?
2. Why don’t politicians seem to take serious measures to balance the US budget and begin paying off its debts?
3. Should we worry about the US debt? Why or why not? Who’s to say we can’t just keep refinancing the debt indefinitely?
4. Are you or is anyone you know in debt? Is personal debt something to be concerned about? Why or why not?

Powered by ScribeFire.