Sachs: Paying for Government’s Expanded Economic Role

Jeff Sachs says the government will need to find new sources of tax revenue:

The Costs of Expanding the Government’s Economic Role [Extended version], by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Scientific American: The 10-year budget framework that President Barack Obama released … is as much a philosophy of government as a fiscal action plan. Gone is the Ronald Reagan view that “government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Obama rightly sees an expanded role for government in allocating society’s resources as vital to meeting the 21st century challenge of sustainable development.

The scientific discipline known as public economics describes why government is needed alongside markets to allocate resources. These reasons include: the protection of the poor through a social safety net; the correction of externalities…; the provision of “merit goods” such as health care and education that society deems to be essential for all of its members; and the financing of scientific and technological research that cannot be efficiently captured by private investors. In all these circumstances, the free-market system tends to underprovide the resource in question…

Obama’s budget plan properly focuses on areas that public economics identifies as priorities and where the U.S. discernibly lags behind many parts of Europe: health…, education…, public infrastructure… and research and development… The emphasis is on public-private partnerships (PPP), combining public financing and private sector delivery. …

Obama’s vision of an expanded federal role is on-target and transformative, but the financing will be tricky. This year’s deficit will reach an astounding $1.75 trillion, or 12 percent of GDP…

Obama’s budget plan aims to reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GNP by 2013, and to level off till 2019…, but … that target will be very difficult to achieve and sustain as planned. …[T]he plan is to cut the deficit mainly through higher taxes on the rich, reduced military outlays for Iraq and Afghanistan, new revenues from auctioning carbon-emission permits and, finally, a squeeze on non-defense discretionary spending… Such a squeeze on non-defense spending seems unlikely—and indeed undesirable—at a time when government is launching several much-needed programs in education, health, energy and infrastructure.

The truth is that the U.S. … will probably have to raise new revenues … to carry out its vital roles in protecting the poor, promoting health and education and building a modern infrastructure with … sustainable technology. Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on the rich certainly is merited, but further taxing the rich much beyond that will come up against political and practical limits. Within a few years, we’ll probably see the need for new broader-based taxes, perhaps a national sales or value-added tax such as those widely used in other high-income countries. If we continue to assume that we can have the expanded government that we need but without the tax revenues to pay for it, the unacceptable build-up of public debt will threaten the well-being of our children and our children’s children. …

I doubt will see any major changes in the tax structure anytime soon, but if we do, value added taxes are regressive, but in countries where they are used, they’re an important source of revenue for highly progressive tax-and-transfer systems (but not without problems). So the characteristic of these taxes overall depends upon their implementation, i.e. how the extra revenue from the tax is used.


Originally published at the Economist’s View and reproduced here with the author’s permission.

One Response to "Sachs: Paying for Government’s Expanded Economic Role"

  1. Guest   April 24, 2009 at 2:41 am

    http://www.rgemonitor.com/index.php