Dick Armey's Free Lunch
Copyright 1994-2010 by Liberty Issues and Michael J. Hihn.
All rights reserved.
"I'd love a 60% tax cut. But there's a big
difference between real tax policy and election year pandering."
"Granted, the tax code now penalizes investment. But go too
far in the other direction and we'll wind up like Japan: a rich
country filled with poor people."
UPDATE: As originally
published (1994) and included here, I calculated $300 billion in new deficits -
versus $200 billion reported by later analysts. What I missed was Armey's
treatment of business taxes.
In his original op-ed, Armey states that
businesses simply deduct expenses from revenues, then pay the same 17% of
what's left. Not quite.
His bill (including the revised version)
significantly changes "taxable business income" by EXCLUDING any deduction for
employee benefits (like group insurance). Robert Hall, a creator of the
flat-tax concept calls Armey's business tax a form of VAT (Value Added Tax).
This amounts to a $100 billion tax increase on business (consensus
(The tax increase could be quite severe for
many small businesses which now pay the 15% rate, but with all current
In other words, Armey would shift $100
billion in taxes to business, to partially offset those middle-class tax cuts.
So Armey's rhetoric may be supply-side, but the reality is New Deal
See ''Sources'' at the end of this page.
Two years ago, Jerry Brown's flat tax created a lot of early
interest. Voters were genuinely excited by tax simplification
and the idea of postcard-size tax returns. It finally collapsed
when Brown's numbers were proven false.
It's election time again. And we see another flat-tax
proposal. This one comes from the political right, and has been introduced as a
bill in the House (HR4585). The political rhetoric is even better than Brown's.
But the numbers are much worse.
Representative Dick Armey (R-Texas) announced his Freedom
and Fairness Restoration Act in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, on
June 16th of this year. More recently, Armey's flat tax was endorsement
by George Will's syndicated column.
Both the Journal and Will can spot a misplaced
comma in the Clinton Health Plan at 100 yards. But they somehow missed $300
billion in new deficits, per year. Armey never mentions the impact of his tax
cuts on revenues. A phone call to his office got the answer that economists
haven't finished studying it.
I'm no economist.
(Armey is!) But Armey's plan is quite simple, so we can apply simple math to analyze it. We
won't be as exact as a formal budget but close enough to see the consequences:
roughly $350 billion in lost revenues, but only $50 billion in real spending
Armey's bill has much to praise, beyond the tax elements.
- The President would be required to issue a regulatory budget, exposing the hidden
cost of government regulations.
- Congress would be required to do a cost-benefit analysis
on any bill with new regulatory authority.
- Government would be required to
compensate property owners, if regulations cause a significant reduction in a
There's also a 'sunset' provision on all federal
programs, but it's weak, and this is where the bill starts falling
Armey calls his bill a ''shrink the government'' plan. He
does mandate ''unbreachable'' spending caps, based on the inflation rate.
''Unbreachable'' is a nifty adjective, but spending caps cap spending -
they don't cut a darn thing.
Will's column notes, correctly, that Dick Armey has always
opposed the hypocrisy of cutting future budgets and calling it a spending cut.
When Congress has budgeted a $10 billion spending increase, then cuts the
increase to $8 billion, that's not a spending cut. Not yesterday.
But today, for his
own bill, Armey uses the same fiction he would have ridiculed in the past.
Massive tax cuts would be paid for by slowing the rate of growth in government
spending. Look familiar? Armey would do, intentionally, what Ronald Reagan was
falsely accused of.
Quoting Armey's op-ed. ''It will guarantee the government
will become NO LARGER in real terms than it is today.'' (emphasis added). You
tell me: Does ''no larger'' mean smaller? Or does it mean the same size? Do
spending caps reduce spending? And how can Armey, only a few paragraphs later,
also call his bill a ''shrink-the government'' plan?
There is a first-year freeze in spending, before the
inflation-adjusted caps kick in. But total spending is growing less than $100
billion per year, at roughly twice the inflation rate. At the most, that means
a $50 billion cut in real spending.
Now let's consider the impact on revenues. I've already
done the math. So here's the premise: If every individual and corporation sees
their income-tax bill go down by 50% or more, then tax revenues will fall by
In the Journal, Armey stated a 50% rate cut on
corporations. I did find some clinkers in backup material from his office. For
now, let's assume a 50% revenue loss here. (It's much more.)
returns, Armey creates a 100% exemption on shareholder dividends, to eliminate
the double-tax on corporate profits, and repeals the capital gains tax. He also
exempts all interest income, under a bizarre notion that taxing interest is a
double-tax on savings. (Savings principle comes from after-tax dollars. But
interest is entirely new income.)
Already, something looks wrong. The flat-tax philosophy
calls for eliminating exemptions to expand the tax base - then reducing
marginal tax rates, while also reducing tax-related distortions in the
marketplace. Armey is going in the wrong direction.
Granted, the tax code now penalizes investment. But go too
far in the other direction and we'll wind up like Japan: a rich country filled
with poor people.
On wages, salaries and pensions, Armey has a flat 17% tax
with hefty exemptions. He phases that in. But let's stay with the eventual tax
structure, then work backwards. Individuals would get a $13,100 exemption.
Single heads of household would get $17,200. A married couple filing jointly
would get a $26,200 exemption. There's also a $5,300 exemption per dependent
If you're like me, you'd whip out last year's tax return
and compare the numbers. If you're a median-income household, with two adults
and a child, you'll calculate something like a 60% cut in your tax bill. You
may even think, ''This is too good to be true.'' It is too good to be
true. Armey never pays for it.
In the table below, I've compared Armey's tax cut at four
different income levels for a family of three, where $40,000 is roughly their
Armey's flat tax has drawn fervid support from most
conservatives and some libertarians. But feel free to check the comparison
above, using your most recent 1040 tax booklet. Or just consider the brief
political analysis at the end.
The comparison table shows tax savings of less than 50% on
higher incomes. But that's where most of the 100% cut on capital gains,
dividends and interest will be found. And tens of millions of households would
receive a 100% tax cut.
On that basis, a 50% cut in tax revenues may even be
conservative. In dollars, that's at least $350 billion per year, versus only
$50 billion in real spending cuts the first year, and no real spending cuts
Now let's consider Armey's phase-in.
He'd start with a 20% flat tax and smaller exemptions. From that alone, he says
economic growth will permit the full tax cut in the third year. Translation:
only if we assume the economy will nearly double in just three years, in real
Don't hold your breath. After Ronald Reagan's 27% income
tax cut, real economic growth was only 17%, for the five years
(combined) starting in
1984. And that was our biggest postwar boom.
I'd love a 60% tax cut. But there's a big difference
between real tax policy and election year pandering. For years, conservatives
have assailed Democrats for promising voters a free lunch. Voters seem to be
getting the message. So why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - by
intentionally fulfilling the worst claims of liberal Democrats? The numbers are
bad. But the political strategy may be even worse. It's like a business plan
that looks great on paper, but fails to anticipate any response from the
Remember the 1980s?
Liberals kept chanting, in unison, ''Profitable corporations pay no taxes.''
That was demagoguery. But it worked. In 1986, Congress reversed Reagan's
accelerated depreciation. And, for good measure, they also repealed the
Kennedy-era investment tax credit. In relative terms, our manufacturing base
ended the decade in worse shape taxwise than it started.
Under Armey's bill, the depreciation incentive is seven
times larger than Reagan's. Most manufacturers would never pay taxes again. In
addition to the 50% corporate rate cut, Armey also wants immediate expensing
for all purchases of new equipment and structures. These purchases are now
depreciated over 7 - 37 years.
Armey writes that his bill will be opposed by ''the
Beltway's leftist ideologues.'' But it was the business community,
non-manufacturers, that lobbied hardest to kill Reagan's (and Kennedy's)
At the grassroots level, claims of ''tax cuts for the
rich'' helped cost Republicans the Senate in 1988 and the White House four
years later. I know that. You know that. What does Dick Armey do? He does
remove the bottom half of the middle class from the tax rolls, and also removes
... wealthy professional investors!
If I was a liberal Democrat, I'd be salivating. Full tax
exemption for wealthy coupon clippers. And even more corporations paying no
taxes. I could run all my old campaign ads, untouched. Plus one new ad: ''Now
they want another decade of greed!''
Then I'd hug Dick Armey, for postponing the death of