By Daniel J. Mitchell
I haven’t spent much time writing about Thomas Piketty’s inequality book for the simple reason that my goal is economic liberty, not equality.
That being said, I think that Piketty is fundamentally misguided even if the goal is helping the poor.
Simply stated, long-run growth is the best way of reducing poverty and boosting living standards. Piketty, by contrast, focuses on redistribution – even though this would require punitive taxation, thus undermining growth and hurting the less fortunate.
This is very obvious when we look at economic performance in market-oriented nations and compare it to economic performance in countries where government plays a bigger role.
Most recently, I showed how Poland is out-pacing Ukraine.
I’ve compared South Korea and North Korea.
The data for Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela is very powerful.
I’ve shown how Singapore has eclipsed Jamaica.
And we can see that Hong Kong has caught upwith the United States.
As I often remark in my speeches, I’d much rather be a poor person in a jurisdiction such as Hong Kong or Singapore rather than in a “compassionate” country such as France.
France might give me lots of handouts, but I’d remain poor. In a free-market society, by contrast, I could climb out of poverty.
Anyhow, let’s return to Piketty’s thesis about the rich benefiting from capital accumulation. All sorts of scholars have called into question his theoretical model and his empirical data, but I don’t even care if Piketty’s right. In a free society, the worst thing that happens is that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.
That’s why we should concentrate on what we can do to boost growth.
And there is one economic reform that is good for growth, but would be especially beneficial for lower-income people. Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation, in a column for Forbes, makes a powerful case for Social Security reform.
He starts with the essential insight that policy makers should focus on helping the poor, not penalizing success.
French economist Thomas Piketty wants to attack the issue of income inequality by redistributing the wealth of the highest earners. Wouldn’t a better solution be to increase the wealth of the lowest earners?
Merrill says we should make it easier for the overall population to become capitalists.
…instead of taxing that success even more than we already do, which discourages capital development and investment, Washington can help lower- and middle-income workers acquire capital so they too can partake in those higher returns.
He then points out that workers are forced to participate in a Social Security system that imposes very high taxes in exchange for rather meager benefits.
Eugene Steuerle and Caleb Quakenbush of the Urban Institute publish an annual estimate of how much workers at different income levels and marriage status pay into Social Security and Medicare and how much they can expect to receive in benefits. Their 2013 report estimates that a single male worker earning the average income of $44,800 (in 2013 dollars) turning 65 in 2015 can expect to receive $287,000 in Social Security benefits. However, that worker paid in $337,000, for a net loss of about $50,000. Both estimates assume a growth rate of 2 percent, which happens to match Piketty’s projection of long-term GDP growth. That disparity between contributions and benefits declines significantly for women, who tend to live longer. A single female worker would have paid in the same amount, $337,000, but could expect to receive $314,000.
Now we get to his proposed reform.
…what if workers were able to put that same amount of money—their 12.4 percent Social Security (FICA) tax; $5,555 in Stererle’s example—into a personal retirement account that could be invested in broad-based equities?
With personal retirement accounts, ordinary workers can generate big nest eggs.
Using an interest calculator, a $5,555 annual contribution over 40 years at 6 percent grows to about $970,000. Factor in that wealth and income inequality largely evaporates. …if the left is really concerned about income inequality, the best way to end it is wealth creation, not redistribution.Replacing Social Security’s financially struggling system with personal retirement accounts would create real wealth for millions of working Americans.
As you can imagine, I heartily concur. Here’s the video I narrated on the topicfor the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
By the way, if you think the stock market is too risky, particularly after the recent financial crisis, one of my Cato colleagues produced a thorough studyshowing that people who retired right after the market fell still would have been better off with personal accounts.
P.S. If you want to understand why class-warfare tax policy will backfire, another one of my colleagues dismantled the work of Piketty and others.
P.P.S. You can enjoy some Social Security cartoons here, here, and here. And we also have a Social Security joke, though I’m not sure we should laugh considering that tens of millions of Americans will suffer when the system no longer can afford to pay promised benefits.
P.P.P.S. Obama’s supposed solution would be an even bigger move in the wrong direction.
P.P.P.P.S. Last but definitely not least, watch Margaret Thatcher destroy the left’s position on income distribution.