January 6, 2007
By Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
The International Monetary Fund is supposed to help nations grow
faster, but the international bureaucracy is frequently criticized
because its officials often tell poor countries to raise taxes and
devalue their currencies.
This characterization may be a bit unfair, since the IMF has
more sensible views on issues such as trade, regulation and
privatization, but it's also true that the organization generally
is seen as an obstacle to market-based fiscal policy.
A good example is a recent IMF study attacking the flat tax.
With many nations in Central and Eastern Europe having adopted
low-rate flat taxes, tax reform has become a global issue.
Countries as diverse as Slovakia, Romania, Russia, Estonia and
Georgia are experiencing faster growth, better tax compliance,
lower unemployment and increased foreign investment thanks to tax
systems that impose low penalties on productive activity and wealth
But when the IMF looked at European flat taxes, it concluded
that "that empirical evidence on their effects is very limited" and
that "there is no sign of Laffer-type behavioral responses."
The study also asserted that, "their impact on [tax] compliance
is theoretically ambiguous." A close examination of the IMF study
reveals two serious shortcomings, either one of which would have
yielded a failing grade in an introductory economics class.
First, the study ignores the impact of tax reform on economic
performance. At no point do the authors compare economic growth in
flat-tax countries to growth in nations with high-rate tax regimes.
Another obvious comparison would be to see whether countries with
flat taxes enjoyed more growth after tax reform. Yet this simple
calculation isn't part of the IMF study.
The failure to examine economic growth is just the tip of the
iceberg. The authors ignore job creation, unemployment rates,
investment or any other measure of prosperity and competitiveness.
It isn't clear why these important variables were neglected, but
one possible reason is that they all contradict the premise of the
paper. Indeed, they indicate that the flat tax has been very
Second, the study asserts that a Laffer-Curve effect exists only
if new revenues from faster growth and better compliance completely
offset the revenues lost because of the low-tax rate. This is a
grossly misleading characterization of the Laffer Curve, a classic
"straw man" argument.
The Laffer Curve is nothing more than a graphic representation
of the centuries-old principle that tax rates impact incentives and
that this can affect taxable income (either because people change
the amount of income they earn or they change the amount of income
they report to the tax authority). The change in taxable income,
needless to say, directly affects the amount of tax money the
government collects. So if a tax-rate reduction causes even modest
increases in growth and tax compliance, revenues will be higher
than projected by simplistic calculations -- and the effect will
grow with each passing year.
But only in very rare cases will the increase in taxable income
be sufficient to fully compensate for the lower tax rate. This
probably happened when Ronald Reagan reduced the top tax rate in
the 1980s. More recently, it appears that the 1997 reduction in the
capital gains tax rate "paid for itself."
The IMF study actually reveals strong evidence that flat tax
reforms have yielded Laffer Curve effects. But the authors attempt
to mislead readers by claiming that tax reform is successful only
if the revenue feedback is at least 100 percent. Even more
astonishing, they assume that this revenue feedback effect should
happen within one year of reform. So even though taxable income
climbed significantly in most flat-tax nations and income-tax
revenue generally has exceeded expectations, readers are supposed
to conclude that the flat tax is a failure.
It's unclear why the IMF is hostile to pro-growth policy. Cynics
point out that the international bureaucracy has an incentive to
perpetuate poverty since that creates more pressure for a bigger
IMF budget, but hopefully ignorance is the real reason.
If nothing else, the IMF is a poor judge of global trends. The
authors wrote that "the question is not so much whether more
countries will adopt a flat tax as whether those that have will
move away from it."
This is a rather bizarre claim since Romania and Georgia adopted
a flat tax last year, while Macedonia and Kyrgyzstan joined the
flat tax club this year. Moreover, no nation with a flat tax has
chosen to go back to a discriminatory tax regime. Even the new
government in Slovakia, comprised of socialists and nationalists,
decided to preserve the flat tax rather than risk killing the goose
that is laying golden eggs.
It's unfortunate that socialist governments have a better
understanding of tax reform than bureaucrats at the IMF.
Mitchell is the McKenna senior fellow in
Political Economy at The Heritage Foundation.
First Appeared in FOXNews.com
The International Monetary Fund is supposed to help nations grow faster, but the international bureaucracy is frequently criticized because its officials often tell poor countries to raise taxes and devalue their currencies.
Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973