Category

Economy

Category

Tariffs are economic policy tools employed for all kinds of purposes. They have been used to raise revenue, to shield domestic firms from foreign competition, as a negotiating tactic against other nations, and as a means of imposing economic sanctions. In certain situations, even the threat of tariffs is enough to impel other nations to change course.

But what are tariffs, and how are they determined? In this Explainer, we’ll seek to understand what tariffs are, who gets to set them, and under what conditions. We’ll also dive into some real-world examples of efforts to shape and guide policymakers toward tariffs for some sectors and away from others.

What Are Tariffs and Who Pays Them?

At their base, tariffs are taxes on imported goods. The wording of the definition matters here: they are taxes on imported goods. Since other countries do not import goods into the United States (they export them to the United States) and it is the US citizens who do the actual importing, the legal incidence of tariffs is paid by Americans who are purchasing the foreign-produced goods.

When thinking about imports, most envision what economists refer to as final goods, purchased by an “end consumer.” We might think of iPhones, laptop computers, fully assembled cars, fruits and vegetables, garments, and a litany of other goods. Fewer people realize that the US also imports many “intermediate goods” — such as automotive components, semiconductors, lumber, and fabricated metal parts — that go into the (domestic) production of final goods. We also import raw materials like rare earth minerals, oil/petroleum, iron, aluminum, and such. Tariffs apply to these, too, unless otherwise exempted.

Even though US citizens bear the cost of these tariffs, it is important to distinguish between what we call the legal incidence of a tariff and the economic incidence of a tariff. It is true that US citizens bear 100 percent of the legal incidence of the tariff because we are the ones who must actually send the money to the government. The economic incidence, however, refers to the share of the tax that is paid by the buyers and sellers. Whenever there is a tax, the buyers will pay some portion of it in the form of higher prices. Sellers will also pay some portion of the tax in the form of reduced revenue kept.

For example, in 2009, President Barack Obama imposed a tariff on Chinese tires. The result of this was a 21.7 percent increase in the price of tires in the US, which was less than the tariff rates of 35 percent, 30 percent, and 25 percent. The sellers of the tires made up the difference in the sense that they got to keep fewer dollars after the sale of the tire than they did when there was no tariff.

How Tariffs Are Set: Non-Emergency Situations

Because tariffs are a tax, they are explicitly within the purview of the US Congress, as expressed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” and the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

This is the constitutional basis by which the House Ways and Means Committee exercises original jurisdiction over tariffs. Here, “original jurisdiction” simply means that all bills pertaining to tariffs must originate in the House Ways and Means Committee. Other Congressional committees can have secondary jurisdiction over a bill dealing with tariffs. A change to the tariff rate on energy imports, for example, would originate in the House Ways and Means Committee but would likely then be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The House Parliamentarian, in his advisory role to the House, would assist the Speaker in designating the path a proposed bill would navigate before reaching the floor for a vote.

The Speaker of the House, as the House’s Presiding Officer, has unilateral discretion to accept the House Parliamentarian’s advice or to ignore it. The only exceptions to this lie in situations where the Constitution itself dictates a certain legislative path a bill must traverse. All bills dealing with taxes (and tariffs), for example, must originate in the House Ways and Means Committee. No Speaker can override this rule.

From there, the proposed tariff bill would follow the standard process for any other bill. It must be approved by a majority of the House at which point it goes over to the Senate for approval and, once both Chambers have passed identical versions of the bill, it goes to the President for final approval.

All of this is the standard, or what we may call “normal” or “non-emergency” process, by which tariffs are set or changed.

How Tariffs Are Set: Emergency Situations

Congress was originally constituted as a “deliberative body” and intentionally designed to move slowly (see the Federalist Papers, especially numbers 41-43, 47-49, 51-53, and 62-66). In times of war or crisis, however, action may need to be taken more quickly than Congress can act. For this reason, it turned to the Executive branch. Because the President is elected by the nation as a whole, Congress expected the President could wield the power of tariffs judiciously and, more importantly, expeditiously in situations of genuine emergency.

Congress subsequently passed a series of laws which, under certain conditions, would grant the President “emergency powers” in areas that would typically be within the constitutional purview of Congress. Examples of this include the Trade Act of 1962 (President Donald Trump used Section 232 to impose tariffs in 2018) and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (President George W. Bush relied on Sections 201 and 301 to impose steel tariffs in 2002, and President Obama invoked Section 421 to justify tariffs on Chinese tires). Numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld Congress’s authority to cede some of its power to the President.

Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, for example, saw the Court uphold the Tariff Act of 1890, which directed the President to suspend duty-free importation of sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides if the President believed that “any country producing and exporting [those products], imposes duties or other exactions upon the agricultural or other products of the United States, which… he may deem to be reciprocally unequal and unreasonable.”

In JW Hampton, Jr & Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Tariff Act of 1922, which required the President “to increase or decrease tariff rates as necessary to ‘equalize . . . differences in costs of production’ between articles produced in the United States and ‘like or similar’ articles produced in foreign countries.”

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act

In 1977, Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),  allowing the President to regulate a wide swath of economic transactions after declaring a state of national emergency. The IEEPA was an offshoot of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, which gave the President the power to impose economic sanctions on enemy nations during wartime.

As the Congressional Research Service notes, the IEEPA gives the President the authority to “‘regulate’ a variety of international economic transactions, including imports. Whether ‘regulate’ includes the power to impose a tariff, and the scale and scope of what tariffs might be authorized under the statute, are open questions as no President has previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs,” (emphasis added). The report is quick to point out that President Richard Nixon used the Trading with the Enemy Act “to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports into the United States in response to a monetary crisis,” which does engender some amount of a precedent for this type of activity.

Declaring a national emergency is straightforward. Between 1917 and 2025, a total of 90 national emergencies were declared, an average of once every 14 months. The National Emergencies Act (1976) requires that the President articulate that there exists an unusual and extraordinary threat, that he or she notify Congress immediately, and publish such a declaration in the Federal Register. Once that is done, a national emergency is officially declared and the authorities and powers of the IEEPA are “unlocked.” Dozens of these emergencies are still in effect today, with some dating back decades.

While scholars have contended that giving power over tariffs in situations of a national emergency has effectively nullified “the distinction between Congress’s constitutional power over tariffs and foreign commerce and the President’s national security and foreign affairs powers,” courts have traditionally sided with the President.

In Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc v. US Dept of Treasury, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that they “owe unique deference to the executive branch’s determination that we face ‘an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security’ of the United States.” In US v Groos, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit wrote that justices “cannot question the President’s political decision to deem this threat ‘unusual and extraordinary.’”

What these court cases establish is that 1) Congress has the power to delegate its authority to the President and that 2) the President is uniquely situated to understand whether a situation qualifies as a “national emergency.” Part of this is no doubt due to the simple fact that the President (presumably) has access to information that is privileged that the Court does not have. Because of that, the judicial branch trusts that Presidents will not abuse the IEEPA for political or procedural reasons. Another explanatory element, though, may be the Court’s hesitation to open Pandora’s box by hearing a challenge to a national emergency declaration. Once that box is open, the intent of the IEEPA would be effectively nullified as courts deliberate.

Beyond Procedure: How the Tariff Sausage Is Made

While this procedural explanation covers how a new tariff can be enacted, we must also consider where the idea for a new tariff comes from and what factors shape tariffs that are ultimately enacted.

Protected industries often gain from tariffs, which make the products and services of their foreign competitors more expensive, so industry actors will actively lobby policymakers to secure these powerful political favors. Requests for tariffs will often be couched in terms of “protecting critical industries,” or “necessary for national security,” and other such language. And while there is likely some degree of sincerity behind these statements, it would be foolish to assume that failing to tariff-protect every industry would result in the United States being unable to defend itself militarily.

Fortunately, policymakers actively soliciting cash payments in exchange for political outcomes is illegal in the United States. Directly bribing policymakers is similarly illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Further, there are strict rules governing gifts for policymakers, making it difficult to blatantly offer a quid pro quo.

Less blatant corruption, however, is common. Promising campaign contributions, pledging endorsements or help with re-election, or casually mentioning that you might know of some highly-paid opportunities for a Congressperson after they leave office are not illegal activities. Savvy lobbying firms (and policymakers) can and often do find creative ways of arranging a sort of quid pro quo arrangement, regardless of stringent laws intended to prevent them.

Sugar tariffs, for example, protect domestic sugar producers by restricting imports and setting price floors, keeping US sugar prices artificially high — often double the world price. A small group of politically connected sugar growers and processors lobbies to maintain these tariffs. The result is a classic case of protectionist rent-seeking: concentrated gains for a few, who have not generated any additional value, and spread-out costs for many (including consumers and candy manufacturers).

Understanding Tariffs

The process of setting tariffs reflects a delicate balance of constitutional authority, wherein Congress holds unambiguous jurisdiction, and presidential powers during national emergencies and in his dealings with matters of foreign affairs. Examples such as the Obama tire tariffs through the use of the Trade Act of 1974 to Trump’s use of the Trade Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum evidence how these emergency powers have been used by presidents in the past. Finally, acknowledging the role that lobbyists and special interest groups play in influencing and shaping tariff policy helps us understand the dynamics at play across both industry and government.

Understanding the procedural dynamics at play across the legislative branch, the executive branch, and industry equips both policymakers and citizens alike with the ability to critically examine tariffs in a way that not only allows for better, more informed discussions but also helps us keep the federal government in check. 

Understanding how tariffs are created, by whom, and for what purposes (both rhetorical and actual) is crucial to understanding their economic impact and political importance.

The latest Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) release from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) shows a net decrease from Q4 2024. This net decrease “primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, and a decrease in government spending…partly offset by increases in investment, consumer spending, and exports.”

The choice of phrasing can lead to some misunderstanding. Imports are subtracted from GDP as a matter of accounting, not because they hurt economic growth. Investment, consumption, and government spending already include imported goods so imports are subtracted from GDP calculations to avoid double counting.

Conversely, government spending is treated as a boon to economic growth while the cost of government spending is ignored. Government spending gets paid for through taxation, taking on debt, and/or printing money, all of which are a cost upon ordinary Americans.

It’s time our measures of economic growth reflect some hard truths: that government spending comes at a cost to our standard of living and that the economy grows despite government intervention, not because of it.

While the BEA publishes a measurement titled “Value Added by Private Industries (VAPI),” it does not get nearly as much attention as it deserves. The most recent data show that VAPI contributes to just under 89 percent of all economic growth. Despite this, GDP is still the more prominent metric, in part because the BEA treats government spending as a value added to the economy.

Last year, we examined GDP minus government spending, which we referred to as Gross Domestic Private Product (GDPP). Economist Murray Rothbard called this “Private Product Remaining.” Here are our latest findings.

Text Box: Source: United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Table 1.1.6 Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars, Authors’ Calculations.

This updated chart also shows the percentage of GDP made up by GDPP. Note that these percentages differ slightly from VAPI estimates. This is because VAPI includes private outputs that are purchased by government (i.e. a defense contractor) while GDPP treats those purchases as part of “Government Consumption and Gross Investment.”

A cursory glance at the BEA’s description of government assumes that all levels of government “contribute to the nation’s economy when they provide services to the public and when they invest in capital. They also provide social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, to households.”

The description also notes that the government gets its revenue taxes, transfers, and fines, as well as rent and royalties. It fails to mention, however, that government receipts come at a cost. That cost, what economists call opportunity cost, is the next-highest valued use of that money.

We can see this effect reflected in the BEA’s own data. When examining the growth of government and the private sector both before and after 2000 in our analysis published last year, government growth (both federal as well as state and local) outpaced that of the private sector. Below is an updated analysis of last year’s findings. Note that the same still holds true: Government outpaces the growth of the private sector, especially state and local governments.

Text Box: Source: United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Table 1.1.6 Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars, Authors’ Calculations.
Text Box: Source: United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Table 1.1.6 Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars, Authors’ Calculations.

Furthermore, we find that the private sector has grown 33 percent slower per year since the start of the new millennium. It is also important to remember that transfer payments, such as Social Security or unemployment insurance, are excluded from GDP estimates of government spending because those transfers are counted toward private spending.

Text Box: Source: United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Table 1.1.6 Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars, Authors’ Calculations.

As many Americans filed their income taxes earlier this year, their W-2 forms highlight how much money they hand over to the federal, state, and local governments. When they look at those amounts, they may be shocked to see how much was withheld and consider what they would have otherwise done with that money. Maybe it would be put toward groceries and gas, maybe it would be put toward car repairs or medical treatments, or maybe it would be set aside for a rainy day.

The same could be said for the government taking on debt. When any level of government issues debt, it takes private capital away from other projects in which private investors might have otherwise invested or provided financing for. Debt-financed spending also shifts tax burdens from the present to the future. While bond investors trust that their loans will be paid back with interest, future generations will bear the cost of government spending undertaken today.

Let’s not forget printing money. If the federal government finances spending with newly printed money, the resulting inflation destroys the purchasing power of the dollar, making everyday goods and services more expensive.

State and local governments also heavily rely on transfers from the federal government. These transfer payments allow policymakers at the state and local level to increase spending at the cost of federal taxpayers who live in other states.

Whether or not the benefits of government spending outweigh the costs is a debate worth having, but official metrics must more clearly communicate that government is a cost in the first place.

Consider Social Security payroll taxes, which the BEA claims, “employer and employee contributions to government social insurance.” If these contributions are not made, however, employers and employees could face penalties—including jail time. The sad truth is that employers and employees could have earned a better return on investment if they had put their payroll tax money in the S&P 500 instead of the required Social Security tax.

A recent review of the academic literature on government stimulus in the economy finds that government stimulus makes, at best, modest, short-term contributions to economic activity.  In the long-term, however, the review finds that government stimulus effects “often diminish or turn negative due to reduced private investment and consumption, emphasizing the role of anticipatory effects and private-sector responses.”

Economists, both past and present, have argued that calculating government contributions to the economy is more complicated than official GDP calculations claim. Economist Patrick Newman notes Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Simon Kuznets’s own objections that government was treated as “an ultimate consumer” on par with private consumers regardless of whether private citizens valued government consumption and investment. Newman takes Kuznets’s concerns further and argues that such positive treatment of government in economic growth calculations opened the door to the flawed views of Modern Monetary Theory.

Alternatively, economists Vincent Geloso and Chandler S. Reilly examine government consumption and investment minus defense spending, called “Defense-Adjusted National Accounts”. The result is a much lower level of GDP, but the clear lesson “that wars do not improve living standards.” These challenges to the status quo of economic growth calculations help, in the words of Geloso and Reilly, “bridge the gap between official economic data and the perceptions of the American public.”

If the average American can see the opportunity cost of the money the government takes from them, there’s no reason the economics profession or government officials cannot reflect and communicate those costs in economic growth measurements as well.

On January 1, 1993, the European Single Market came into being. The previous October, British Prime Minister John Major had looked forward to “a single European market of 330 million people…A market for British computers. British cars. British televisions. British textiles. British services. British skills. The biggest free trade area in the world.” 

By eliminating trade barriers within the European Economic Community, the Single Market would boost trade, economic growth, and, perhaps, political integration. These hopes have not been borne out. 

A report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in October found that while intra–European Union trade in goods increased from 11 percent to 24 percent of the European Union’s Gross Domestic Product between 1993 and 2023 compared to 8 percent to 15 percent for extra–European Union trade, intra–European Union trade in services — which account for 72 percent of the EU’s GDP — had grown at exactly the same rate as extra–European Union trade. Indeed, trade between EU countries is less than half that between US states. 

A graph of the european union

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

What accounts for this? As Luis Garicano, a former member of the European Parliament, notes in “The myth of the single market,” “The IMF puts the hidden cost of trading goods inside the EU at the equivalent of a 45 percent tariff. For services the figure climbs to 110 percent, higher than Trump’s ‘Liberation day’” tariffs on Chinese imports.” 

“The Single Market we all thought we have is largely a myth,” concludes Garicano, who gives three reasons for the Single Market’s failure.  

First, the principle of “mutual recognition,” which “states that whatever can be sold legally in one EU country can be sold in all others,” “fails in practice,” he writes. The principle “was never absolute,” he continues:

The EU’s treaties…do allow countries to block products for legitimate reasons like public health, security, or environmental protection. But these exceptions were supposed to be just that — exceptions, not the rule. The problem is the cost of enforcing the rule when a country claims an exception.

Among several examples:

Every product sold to French consumers must bear the national “Triman” recycling logo plus detailed sorting instructions specific to France. AkzoNobel’s paint cans fully meet EU chemicals and food-contact rules, but a single paint tin still has to carry France’s Triman recycling logo, Spain’s “Punto Verde,” and Italy’s alphanumeric material code. Space on a 1-liter tin is so tight that the firm now holds separate stocks for France, Spain, and Italy.

Second, “The EU directives do not harmonize EU legislation.” 

“There are two problems,” Garicano writes:

…first, rather than replacing national regulations, EU rules pile on top of them. Second, member states often engage in ‘gold plating’ – adding extra national requirements when implementing EU directives.

The result is that even when the EU does create common rules (directives or regulations aiming to harmonize), the outcome is often not a truly single market. New EU rules often don’t replace old national ones. Instead, they create additional layers of regulation.

As an example, he offers General Data Protection Regulation:

…which (in spite of being a regulation) still means we have regulators at EU, national and regional level. In January 2022, Austria’s data-protection authority held that NetDoktor’s use of Google Analytics breached the GDPR, and ordered the site to disable the tool or face fines. A few weeks later, the French data protection authority (CNIL) issued parallel decisions against three French websites, again declaring Google Analytics unlawful and instructing each operator to switch to an EU-hosted alternative. In June 2022, Italy’s authority (Garante) imposed the same ban on Caffeina Media, threatening to suspend its data flows to the United States unless it rewired its analytics stack within ninety days. A publisher that trades across the EU must now keep separate analytics setups for Austria, France, and Italy, while the same tool remains legal elsewhere. The Draghi report notes that there are around 90 tech-focused laws and more than 270 regulators active in digital networks across all EU countries. So much for the single market!

Finally, “The EU Commission is not doing its job in enforcing the Single Market.” “[E]xplicitly charged with ensuring the application of the Treaties,” Garicano writes, in the twelve months to December 2024, “the Commission opened just 173 new cases – only a quarter of the volume handled a decade ago.”

“There’s a paradoxical evolution in the Commission’s role,” he notes, “As it has taken on additional functions in areas like housing, defense, and geopolitics (the first von der Leyen Commission termed itself a “geopolitical commission”), it has retreated from its core task of policing the single market.”

An optimist might infer that the problem here is not too much EU but too little: the Single Market hasn’t delivered on its promises because it isn’t sufficiently “single.” A pessimist might note that if this hasn’t happened in more than three decades, it is unlikely to begin anytime soon. Yet another hefty report or review is unlikely to get the needle moving.  

This is bad news for John Major’s successor, Kier Starmer. With his government faltering less than a year into office, he has sought a new deal with the EU to improve Britain’s terms of access to the Single Market.

But services account for a relatively high 54 percent of British exports compared to 33 percent for the United States and just 31 percent for the EU, and this is exactly the sector in which the Single Market is most completely a fiction. This probably accounts for the British economy’s stubborn refusal to collapse in the wake of Brexit: whatever small benefit there is to being locked into a Single Market with a bunch of torpid economies is reduced still further when there are high barriers to you selling your main export to them — barriers that don’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

If Starmer is hoping that his new terms of access to the “biggest free trade area in the world” will offset the economic harm done by his government’s disastrous fiscal policies, he is likely to be mistaken. It’s a myth.

The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 119) in dramatic fashion (215-214) last month. Most of the drama was on the Republican side. The House Freedom Caucus favored preserving the 2017 tax cuts but only if there were sufficient budget cuts to pay for it. 

A central sticking point was Medicaid, both in terms of rules and in terms of funding. In the end, the cuts were larger than almost anyone expected, $880 billion over the next 10 years, and all but three House Freedom Caucus members voted yes. Every Democrat voted no.

The Obamacare “expansion” changed the original mission of Medicaid, which was to ensure the working poor and disabled didn’t end up without healthcare insurance. Medicaid had been, up until the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the default form of insurance for anyone who was poor or unable to work. Since then, even the young and perfectly able-bodied can qualify for Medicaid. Adding millions of newly eligible enrollees burned through money that could have been put toward elements of Medicaid’s original mission, things like investing in prenatal care for poor women.

Medicaid’s budget woes worsened with the onset of COVID-19. Spending increased even more rapidly, in part from the absence of normal coverage interruptions that were eliminated during COVID’s continuous enrollment provisions. At the same time, an aging population has led to rapidly rising long-term care costs among the poor elderly. Finally, a Byzantine system of below-market mandated reimbursement rates at the state level has become increasingly onerous to save money, especially in states with ballooning rolls like California, where Medicaid has been opened up to illegal aliens. Below-market mandated rates have caused price-shifting distortions to accumulate, and make the entire healthcare system less efficient.

Medicare monthly enrollment data.cms.gov

Medicaid is an outstanding example of how not to structure a government program. Its daunting complexity results in people frequently migrating into and out of the program (this is especially problematic for programs that provide some kind of insurance because of adverse selection problems). Because it is fundamentally a government bureaucracy, problem-solving is mostly through top-down edicts or acts of Congress. In contrast, in many parts of American society entrepreneurs continuously adapt, adjust, and innovate to deal with new problems and to take advantage of new opportunities to improve service, reduce costs, or both.

The bill now faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Changes to Medicaid are going to produce a political backlash, even in some red states, since there will be political pressure for state governments to pick up the slack. But most importantly, a very large and dysfunctional system will remain intact and dysfunctional.

The problem with Medicaid goes far beyond Medicaid. In a rich society like ours, everyone is going to get a fair amount of healthcare one way or another. We are empathetic, sympathetic, interconnected, and rich, so most of us feel compelled to do something to help the uninsured and those without access to care. If a person is writhing in pain because he can’t get healthcare, most likely neither you nor anyone you know personally would just step over him without concern.

This is the real problem: healthcare in America has effectively become a non-excludable good. A non-excludable good is one we cannot keep others from consuming (e.g., national defense). Long ago, economists worked out why such goods are inevitably underprovided by the private market because of free riding. Since virtually everyone is going to get at least some healthcare when they need it, some take advantage of that by not buying their own health insurance.

Among the many economic challenges specific to healthcare markets, economists of all political stripes agree that this is the deepest problem. Recall that perhaps the biggest bone of contention with Obamacare was the individual mandate, put into the bill specifically to address the free rider problem. Many opposed the individual mandate for a variety of reasons, but did not challenge its premise, which was that there was a deep free rider problem to be dealt with in American healthcare.

The bold — but probably politically impossible — course of action would have been for House Republicans to eliminate the federal role in Medicaid. But if they are not going to return this issue, and its financing, to the states, then rather than further tweaking Medicaid and creating new problems, a better approach would be to find an alternative path to get government out of the business of healthcare for the poor. In short: provide basic healthcare insurance through vouchers. 

To put it simply, eliminate Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid and replace them with a national healthcare voucher system. This transformative change for American healthcare could be limited to the level paid for with a national sales tax, and our unfunded liability problems would simply disappear. While, for practical reasons, this would likely have to start at the national level, the goal could be to then spin it off to the states. 

Milton Friedman introduced the idea of using vouchers with respect to education 70 years ago. His ideas were summarily rejected as too naïve, too impractical, and even as irresponsible. Now we are in the midst of an explosion of school choice across the nation. How much better off would we be if we had listened to him long ago?

Friedman did not advocate using a voucher system for healthcare insurance. While his diagnosis of the problems confronting the American healthcare system was unimpeachable, he did not explicitly consider the problem of de facto non-excludability. Since this induces some citizens to save money by not buying healthcare insurance, it guarantees there will always be uninsured citizens. That, in turn, ultimately guarantees some level of government provision of either healthcare or healthcare insurance.

I believe that if he were alive today, Friedman would support vouchers for healthcare insurance. Vouchers provide the government with a means of funding a solution without having the government be the mechanism that provides the solution. As such, it mostly avoids the ever-growing creeping bureaucracies that suppress competition and introduce innumerable distortions and never-ending political opportunism.

We can eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare by implementing a national voucher program for healthcare insurance for all citizens. By structuring the budget process to be self-balancing, we can ensure future generations are no longer saddled with a combination of increasing debt they never agreed to and lower quality of service than those who were responsible for that debt were able to enjoy. 

Ever notice that when the topic is unfunded liabilities, Medicaid is rarely mentioned? Is that because Medicaid is on a healthy budget path? Hardly. Medicaid is not included in such conversations because Medicaid is not a self-funding program in the sense that it does not have its own dedicated payroll tax funding. At the federal level, it is funded out of the general budget.

If the federal budget were experiencing year-over-year surpluses, one could argue that it is not burdening future Americans because it is being cross-subsidized. But we are, in fact, experiencing year-over-year deficits, so any dollar the federal government spends on Medicaid is effectively a dollar of additional federal debt at the margin. Rising federal spending on Medicaid equals rising federal debt. 

Historical Debt Outstanding Dataset fiscaldata.treasury.gov

Far from a principled stand or a change in national direction, the latest Republican budget does little more than kick the can down the road — to avoid the political cost of actually doing what is best for the country.

How much more dysfunction and irresponsibility are we going to tolerate so we can pretend that our healthcare system is only for the deserving? We should be honest about the fact that we do, and will continue to, treat everyone. This is nothing to apologize for but it’s something we need to come to grips with.

A voucher program would redirect government power to unleash market competition among healthcare insurers and among healthcare providers. They will hate it. The NEA’s response to school vouchers should tell you everything you need to know.

On May 12, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at lowering US prescription drug prices. In keeping with his tariff policy, the president was motivated by the price differences — often vast — between identical prescription drugs sold in the US and in the rest of the world. The EO ordered the US Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce to take action against countries that were “free-riding on American pharmaceutical innovation.” It further directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism for American consumers to bypass middlemen and purchase prescription drugs directly from manufacturers at favored prices for Americans.

International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons (RAND RR2956, 2022). Chart by AIER, assisted by Grok.

Simple fallacies and misunderstandings of economic reasoning underlie the EO. Fundamentally, it claims a perceived problem will be solved through central planning — alas, President Trump is continuing the bipartisan conceit of presidents, from FDR to Nixon, and more recently Bidenomics, that the executive pen will allocate scarce resources more efficiently than the free market. More generally, the EO displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the factors determining prescription drug prices.

The American healthcare system is broken — not because of market failures, but because of government involvement, direct and indirect. Yet another layer of command-and-control price-fixing won’t solve that.

The EO does, however, provide an opportunity to examine just why prescription drugs are so much more expensive in the US than in Europe (and, by extension, the rest of the world). It turns out it’s a simple question of microeconomics — supply and demand, with a twist of elasticity, and a heavy dash of government intervention.

Back to the Basics

Prescription drugs do indeed cost more, overall, in the US, than in the rest of the world. As for every other price, the difference comes from the interacting market forces of supply and demand — supplemented by the complications of state intervention.

It would be simplistic to ascribe the price differences to one single factor. Indeed, as the Austrian school of economics has convincingly demonstrated, markets are an ecosystem, rather than a machine. Prices emerge from the actions of entrepreneurs reading market opportunities as they attempt to serve consumers, in their quest for profit. In the case of prescription drugs, there are many factors at play.

1. The Supply Side (1): Patents and the Cost of Development

The first step in understanding the landscape of prescription drug prices is the cost of R&D. Development costs account for up to 70 percent of the cost of production of a prescription drug. Drugs are not playthings that can be cheaply rolled off an assembly line and tweaked if they don’t work. The cost of producing a new drug — from R&D to the arduous FDA compliance process — can reach $1 billion and take up to 20 years. On top of that, the success rate for new medications is less than 7 percent. When producing (or attempting to produce) a new drug, pharmaceutical companies must balance the expected income over a lifetime — or at least the 20 years of patent protection — with the enormous cost of production.

2. The Demand Side…

Enter European governments, and a shift from the supply side to the demand side. European governments “negotiate” prescription drug prices lower than the market price. They are able to do so for two reasons. First, government-run national health insurance agencies have quasi-monopsony power (mandatory or government schemes account for 90 percent of prescription drug payments in Cyprus, and 82 percent in Ireland, France, and Germany, down to about 40 percent in Iceland, Latvia, and Denmark, and the low 20s in some former communist countries). Second, governments augment their “big buyer” power with the threat of suspended patents, should pharmaceutical companies not cooperate. 

3.  The Supply Side (2): Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Accept Lower Prices?

Given the cost of developing and licensing a new prescription drug, why do pharmaceutical companies accept European prices that don’t cover their costs? Pharmaceutical companies would, of course, prefer to sell their products in Europe at market prices. But the market won’t bear it (in light of the quasi-monopsony negotiation power, augmented by regulatory threats). So they do the best they can. Pharmaceutical companies accept lower European prices that maximize their profits in light of the higher prices in the US market

If European states have such market and regulatory power, why don’t we see zero-price or very cheap prescription drugs in Europe (rather than a price lower than the US)? Simply, because pharmaceutical companies may indeed have reduced market power, but they still have some. If, in the negotiation process, they can’t obtain a price high enough to cover their costs and profits (given revenue from the US market), they can simply exit the European market. And they do. Of all the new prescription drugs launched since 2012, 85 percent are available in the US compared to less than 40 percent in Europe, and European patients wait an average of two years longer than their American counterparts for access to new cancer drugs.

 4. The IRP Fallacy

So, in a sense, yes, US consumers are “subsidizing” European consumers by paying the higher prices necessary for pharmaceutical companies to recover their R&D costs. But, at the same time, American consumers are paying for what they get, because so many more prescription drugs are available to them, and so much sooner, than their European brethren. What about equalizing prices, as the May 12 EO intends to do? This kind of IRP (international reference pricing) is nothing new. Both political parties have attempted to introduce it (if only as part of Medicare reforms) in the past decade. The idea, basically, is to mandate a US price that is indexed to the price of a basket of foreign prices. The problem is that IRP ignores so many economic factors: structure and size of markets, elasticity of demand in different countries (how much more consumers are willing to pay before they seek substitutes), government bargaining and regulatory powers, the number of countries in the reference, and more. 

Without flying too far up Aristotle’s nose, a Coke is not always a Coke. The price of 12 ounces of Coca-Cola varies widely based on circumstances. It will cost far less as part of a 24-pack purchased at Costco than it will at a Disney stand with a captive audience; it will cost more as part of a restaurant experience than as a standalone bottle; it will cost more in Alaska or Puerto Rico than in Massachusetts or Idaho because of shipping costs imposed by the Jones Act. And, naturally, it will respond to market forces: around the world, a 12-ounce Coke sells for a high of $5.29 in wealthy Switzerland, all the way down to a low of 30 cents in poor Bangladesh. Turning from goods to labor markets, the average wage for a factory worker is 21,000 Euros ($23,520) in Spain, 24,889 Euros ($27,876) in France, and $43,000 per year in the US. The average income of doctors in Spain is $114,000 per year, compared to $143,000 in France and $261,000 in the US. We can thus expect disparities among countries in prescription drug prices.

Within Europe, there are variations on the annual price that patients pay for prescription drugs based on many factors: the market power of the national health system, the government’s regulatory bite, policy priorities (for example, cost-effectiveness in the UK and Sweden versus patient benefit in Germany), and, of course, a country’s overall wealth. Thus, Germans spend about 627 Euros ($702) per year on prescription drugs, the French about 475 Euros ($532), the British 184 Pounds ($246), and Bosnians 110 Euros ($123), while Americans spend an average of $1,564.

The great Frédéric Bastiat reminded us that the “entire difference between a bad and a good Economist is apparent…. A bad one relies on the visible effect while the good one takes account both of the effect one can see and of those one must foresee.” 

In that spirit, it is tempting (as many medical and public health studies have done) to conclude that enforcing IRP would simply lower prescription drug prices for Americans, and we would all go home happy (and healthy). However, the reality is likely to be far more complex. As with many of President Trump’s actions, the intentions and details are always a bit fuzzy. The motivation seems to be general frustration over high prices in the US, but the proposed remedy is a mixture of “mechanisms” to negotiate lower domestic prices and protectionist policy against countries with lower prices. The EO doesn’t quite call for a price ceiling or IRP, but the effects would be similar.

A US price ceiling (or actions that would put downward regulatory pressure on US prices) would dramatically alter the calculus of profitability for drugs, as pharmaceutical companies seek to recover their R&D and regulatory costs. Lower US prices would make pharmaceutical companies much more reluctant to accept lower foreign prices, as they currently count on the US market to cover R&D costs. They would thus either demand higher foreign prices (to keep US prices from dropping too much) or simply exit foreign markets. The net effect would likely be higher foreign prices, but only slightly lower US prices. And if profits were to fall substantially, pharmaceutical companies would simply exit the market, as they could not recover the cost of R&D…. and all of this doesn’t account for all the unintended consequences of price controls.

 5. The US Mixed Market

All this should certainly not be read as an apologia for the US health insurance model. One of my first letters to the editor (published in The Economist in 2007), corrected the misperception that the US enjoys a free market in healthcare. Today, about half of all health expenditures in the US are paid by the federal government and state programs. That places the US about two thirds of the way down the ranking of European countries by government share (and not, as the popular canard goes, at the bottom of the list). The 33 percent of health expenditures paid by US private insurance companies is distorted by regulation, lack of competition, and lack of portability (due to tax privileges for employers). In sum, the US certainly does not have a private or market healthcare system. It is, at best, a mixed market, with heavy doses of crony capitalism.

The US system is inefficient. It could be more efficient, more effective, and cheaper — and less exclusionary of the poor, the underemployed, and the unemployed — if both healthcare and health insurance were deregulated, so market forces could invite efficiency and lower prices. For policy details, see the Cato Handbook for Policymakers.

For all its statist weaknesses, the US system does have more market forces and less regulation than its European counterparts. Rationing of scarce resources in the US is mostly handled by prices (which are largely, if incompletely, offset by insurance) rather than by waiting, lack of innovation, and taxpayer-funding deficits in national healthcare programs.

In addition to better allocation of scarce resources, the US also enjoys more resources overall, because the system encourages innovation. American pharmaceutical companies account for more than 60 percent of new drug approvals globally, and US companies continue to be a world driver of medical innovation. 

More Markets, Less Socialism

Prices emerge in a complex ecosystem, moved by various microeconomic forces. Those forces are compounded, complicated, and distorted by regulatory considerations. Pharmaceutical prices are no exception. US patients are indeed subsidizing new prescription drugs for Europeans — but the alternative would be even worse. 

The US healthcare system does not need more socialism. It needs less regulation and the bounty of innovation, quality, and lower prices that would be unleashed by market forces.

In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis told lawmakers they have his full support to end property taxes statewide. 

“Taxpayers need relief,” DeSantis said. “You buy a home, you pay off the mortgage, and yet you still have to write a check to the government every year just for the privilege of living on your own private property… Is the property yours, or are you just renting it from the government?”

“You should own your property free and clear… I think to say that someone that’s been in their house for 35 years has to keep owing the government money, you know…you don’t own your home, if that’s the case.”

The Governor then described buying a flat-screen TV and then having to continue making tax payments on it. 

“That’s not how we do things,” he said. “It’s like, ok, if you’re going to tax something, tax it at the transaction, and then let people actually enjoy their private property, free and clear of the government. So that, I think, is the vision. That’s the philosophical insight.”

The most critical line is the last one: is it truly your property if you risk losing it to the government? Is this a “property tax” or a rent payment you make to the state to keep a roof over your head?

Philosophically, property taxes are arguably one of the most dishonorable taxes established in the modern world, not unique to the United States, as they are implemented in the vast majority of global legislations. Based on sources like Tax Foundation or Immigrant Invest, only a small handful of countries — approximately 175 to 185, over 90 percent globally — have some form of property tax, with the few exceptions typically being tax havens, principalities, or petrodollar monarchies like the United Arab Emirates. These are the exception, not the norm.

At the federal level in the United States, it is impossible to enact legislation to eliminate or dismantle this tax, which is why the governor of Florida is attempting to do it in his State. 

But he faces several legal, jurisdictional, and budgetary hurdles.

The Budgetary Hurdles

Economically, several aspects would need to be reconsidered before advancing such a measure. 

According to reports, property taxes in Florida generate $55 billion annually, funding 73 percent of school budgets and a significant portion of local services. Eliminating them would require alternative revenue sources for the government or, preferably, massive cuts in public spending. DeSantis has suggested that Florida should generate more revenue from tourism and reduce spending. While this sounds appealing — like Elon Musk’s chainsaw — it would still fall short of balancing the budget and would require political commitment from local leaders to move in this direction.

The state of Florida has experienced a real estate boom driven by mass migration from states like New York and California to the Sunshine State, which has driven up housing prices and, consequently, property taxes. According to a Redfin report, between 2019 and 2024, the average tax bill in Jacksonville and Tampa increased by nearly 60 percent, while in Miami and Fort Lauderdale, it grew by 48 percent. Statewide, the median property tax rose by 47.5 percent during the same period, according to CoreLogic.

On average, Florida homeowners pay about $2,338 per year in property taxes, with a state effective rate of 0.80 percent of the assessed value, though this varies by county. For example, in Miami-Dade, the average is $2,756 for properties valued between $350,000 and $400,000 (1.01 percent rate), while in Broward, it’s $3,305 for homes with a median value of $346,000 (0.95 percent rate). Although property insurance is not legally required by state law, homeowners are practically obligated to obtain it, as mortgage lenders and condominium or HOA regulations mandate it. The average property insurance premium in the state is $4,419 per year due to risks like hurricanes and increasing requirements such as flood insurance. Thus, Florida homeowners may end up spending over $6,500 annually to maintain a roof over their heads.

The Legal and Jurisdictional Hurdles

The great challenge for the Republican governor is to successfully promote legislation that aligns all local governments and reconciles their budgets, or at the very least, advances an agenda that creates a collaborative plan among various authorities with a common goal, as property taxes in Florida are collected by local governments, something DeSantis acknowledges.

“Property taxes are local, not state,” he said. “So, we’d need to do a constitutional amendment (requires 60 percent of voters to approve) to eliminate them (which I would support) or even to reform or lower them.” 

The problem lies in the fact that state spending has grown so much that many governments no longer know how to survive without high tax rates, imposing burdens on every transaction you make. This would require not only a massive economic adjustment but also a political responsibility that is difficult to achieve.

Currently, it seems challenging — indeed, nearly impossible — for such a proposal to move forward, especially in local governments dependent on these taxes. Therefore, one path the governor could take is to propose a constitutional amendment to strip local governments of their authority over property taxes, though this would require 60 percent of the vote to pass.

At the moment, support in the Florida Congress is divided, with Speaker Daniel Pérez, also a Republican, opposing DeSantis’s agenda. This has led the governor of Florida to declare that there are factions within the Republican Party in the state that have been co-opted by the left and are unwilling to cut spending and taxes, a problem that appears to be present at the federal level as well.

Other States Have Tried

Florida is not the only state that has embarked on a crusade against property taxes; other Republican-majority states have attempted to end this burden on homeowners. 

At least five states have tried in recent years to abolish this tax for citizens. However, most proposals consistently fall short, generally for the same reasons: budgetary deficits. 

In North Dakota, voters rejected Measure 4, fearing that the loss of $1.3 billion annually would harm schools and local services. In Michigan, the AxMiTax initiative failed to collect the required 446,000 signatures for the ballot, facing opposition due to the lack of a plan to replace $14 billion in revenue, including $2.5 billion for schools. In Nebraska, the Legislative Bill 388 stalled over concerns about budget cuts and the regressive impact of new consumption taxes. In Texas, a non-binding proposal gained Republican support but did not advance due to unaddressed budgetary concerns, as did Wyoming’s House Bill 203, which was rejected by the House of Representatives. 

Essentially, a national debate has emerged about the need to abolish property taxes, but the excessive growth of local and state budgets has, for now, made it an impossible mission to reach agreements to eliminate this burden on taxpayers. 

It appears challenging for any legislative proposal to move forward without first restructuring public spending. Nevertheless, it is a significant achievement that several states have initiated an open discussion on this issue, and that one of the leading political figures in the United States, like Governor Ron DeSantis, has highlighted property taxes as an extortionate burden on citizens, preventing taxpayers from retiring with dignity.

In the Biblical book of First Kings, Yahweh’s prophet Elijah challenged 450 pagans to a spiritual showdown on Mount Carmel in northern Israel. The stakes were high: whom would the Jewish people worship, Yahweh or Baal? Since the victors wrote the book, you can probably guess who won.

Some three millennia later, with the publication of Karl Marx’s three-volume Das Kapital, communism and capitalism began a similarly high-stakes contest for the soul of the world. Like Elijah and the prophets of Baal, these two competing systems brought irreconcilable spiritual roots to the fight. But can we say yet who won?

Regarding the soul of communism, to the extent it can be said to have one, it is the philosophy of atheism. Marx was an avowed atheist, though some of his writings also suggest surprising antipathy towards God. Seizing on this fact, at least one author has alleged Marx was a closet Devil worshipper. The consensus view, of course, is that he simply rejected belief in the divine. If he was an instrument of evil (not a stretch considering his quantifiable impact on the world), it must have been as an unwitting dupe.

One also finds evidence of communism’s atheistic heart in the implacable war that Marxist regimes in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, and Cambodia waged against religious beliefs in their own people. Even today, after having scuttled the most economically dysfunctional aspects of Marxism, the Chinese Communist Party continues to oppress independent Christians and has imprisoned over a million Uyghur Muslims in reeducation camps.

Capitalism, on the other hand, while espousing no specific religious creed, first grew from a matrix of Christian cultures in Europe. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, German sociologist Max Weber argues that this was not happenstance, but that the ethic of spiritual struggle and growth embedded in Protestant Christianity found a worldly analog in the capitalist economic model.

Additionally, Christianity’s view of the individual as the center of worth and agency also makes it a natural fit for the capitalist system. While the New Testament holds deep concern for the poor—in either spirit or pocketbook—the remedy it proposes is not collective command but individual love. Assets can, and often should, be given away, but as in the Old Testament, thou shalt not steal. Private property is just part of the Bible’s anthropology.

Today, over a century has passed since the ideological battle between communism and capitalism was joined by the publication of Marx’s massive, angry trilogy, one written from personal penury in the domed reading room of London’s British Museum. 

During that span, capitalist economies have elevated their people’s material well-being more than any other system in human history. In her own hefty (and refreshingly un-angry) three-volume masterwork, capped in 2016 by Bourgeois Equality, economist Deirdre McCloskey credits the intellectual paradigm shift of capitalism with a “Great Enrichment” that lifted average living standards more than 30-fold in two centuries, a period unlike any the world had seen before.

Peter McNamara credits McCloskey with demonstrating that “…commerce cultivates a certain set of virtues, consisting of highly modified Aristotelian virtues spliced together with the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love. The ‘Bourgeois Deal’ undergirding the Great Enrichment is truly an economic and moral winner.”

On the other side of the scorecard, societies that embraced Marx’s system have left behind memories such as a 96-mile wall built to trap people in their own homeland, long lines of shoppers unable to purchase basic consumer goods, and a perverse moral ecology in which thought police crowded ideological dissenters into concentration camps which one brilliant inmate, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, styled a “Gulag Archipelago.”

Which of these two systems works best? 

There is only one rational answer. Nonetheless, the ideological struggle between communism and capitalism is not over. That’s because it actually goes back much further than Karl Marx or even the prophet Elijah. In the book of Genesis, the serpent convinces Eve to eat forbidden fruit, saying it will make her like God. Chasing this utopian vision, humanity’s parents lost paradise.

Like the serpent, communists say they can engineer utopia if only everyone aligns with the plan. Such a beautiful end justifies any amount of spilled blood.

Capitalists, on the other hand, are realists, understanding that mankind cannot perfect itself. This has been proven as consistently as the law of gravity. Better to have a system that accepts fallen human nature while endowing people with the freedom to struggle and better themselves as they see fit. The resulting individual growth aggregates into not only freer societies but wealthier ones, as the United States continues proving decades after the Soviet Union, once communism’s best hope, crumbled away.

How do property taxes work in the United States, and what are their economic consequences? This AIER Explainer explores how property taxes are enforced, how much revenue they generate, the debate among economists about whether property taxes are “good” taxes, and steps lawmakers can take to keep property tax burdens reasonable.

What Property Taxes Are

Property taxes are taxes on the assessed value of property. Currently, only the value of real estate is taxed, not personal property, unless you have a business. Historically, state and local governments often did tax the personal property of households, which made the property tax essentially a wealth tax. Massachusetts’ “faculty tax,” which in colonial days assessed and taxed a person’s income-earning potential, technically survived until the early twentieth century. States gradually moved away from taxing real estate value in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as alternative revenue sources like income and sales taxes became available. Most modern property taxes are levied by local governments (counties, municipalities, sub-municipal bodies like villages and townships, and special districts).

Today’s property tax systems still involve assessment of real estate value by a local official. Assessors attempt to use comparable properties nearby to estimate the value of the land you own and the structures on that land. Every property owner in a jurisdiction faces the same tax rate, so the higher the assessed value, the more tax is levied.

States try to standardize assessment practices across localities, and most states have some sort of process to “equalize” local assessments to statewide market prices. These equalization procedures became important from the 1960s onward, as state legislation and court decisions drove efforts to redistribute money from “property-rich” to “property-poor” localities for the purpose of school finance.

Property taxes are often paid into an escrow account as part of a monthly mortgage payment. The mortgage lender then pays the taxes from the escrow account when they are due. For real estate owned without a mortgage, or when the lender does not require escrow payments, property taxes are typically paid directly to the local government once or twice a year.

Statistics on Property Taxes

The US Census collects data on state and local finances. In the US, state and local governments raised about $650 billion in property tax revenue in fiscal years ending in 2022, amounting to 27 percent of all state and local tax revenue. Ninety-seven percent of property tax revenue is local rather than state. Local governments rely on property taxes for over a quarter of their total revenue and about 40 percent of “own-source” revenue—revenues raised by local governments rather than given to them by higher-level governments (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Local Revenue by Source, U.S., FY 2022

Individual states’ dependence on property taxes varies with how fiscally decentralized they are. That makes sense, since property taxes are a quintessentially local form of revenue in the US today.[1] The most property-tax-dependent state, by far, is New Hampshire, where over 61 percent of all state and local tax revenue comes from property taxes. Number two is Texas, where 41 percent of state and local tax revenue comes from property taxes.

The least property tax-dependent states are Alabama and New Mexico, both of which get under 15 percent of their tax revenue from property taxes. Both states have essentially centralized school finance under state government, so property taxes largely go to noneducational functions of local government, such as roads, police, fire protection, and parks. Alabama relies heavily on sales and individual income taxes for revenue, while New Mexico depends most on taxes on gross receipts, individual income, and mineral and hydrocarbon severance.

Fig. 2 displays a heatmap of property tax dependence for all 50 states. Fig. 3 maps property taxes as a share of personal income for all 50 states, a reasonable proxy for property tax burden (though it overstates the burden of property taxes on residents in states with a large share of seasonal homes).

Fig. 2 Property Tax Dependence in the States

Fig. 3 Property Tax Collections Divided by Income, by State

The Economics of Property Taxes

Economics can help us answer two questions about taxes: How much do they discourage productive economic activity? And on whom does the “incidence” of a tax fall — in other words, who really pays it? The answer to the latter question can also help us understand whether a given tax is “progressive” or “regressive,” that is, whether more affluent households pay more or less of the tax.

When it comes to determining the economic impact of property taxes, economists consider two possibilities.[2]

The first possibility is that the property tax is a “capital tax.” This assumes that real estate wealth is a form of capital, and higher property taxes reduce the return to capital. If the property tax is a capital tax, it is a relatively wasteful but progressive form of taxation. Taxing capital is wasteful because it discourages investments that increase the productivity of human labor. It’s a bit like eating your seed corn. Taxing capital may nevertheless be progressive if it primarily reduces the incomes of the people who get their incomes from investments, who tend to be wealthier than average. Taxing capital may not be progressive, however, if it strongly discourages investment, because then workers will be less productive and earn lower wages.

The second possibility is that the property tax is a “benefit tax,” that is, a tax that works like a user fee: the more you benefit from public services, the more you pay in tax. If the property tax is a benefit tax, it doesn’t discourage investment and isn’t wasteful. It would approximate a competitive market price for the services you get from your local government.

It’s important to note that economists — unlike many politicians and activists — generally don’t view property taxes as regressive. While lower-income households may pay a larger share of their income in property taxes, that’s only part of the picture. Economists consider equilibrium effects: higher property taxes can lead to lower rents and home prices or greater benefits from public services, offsetting the initial burden.

To understand the economics of property taxation, start with the understanding that people are mobile, but land is not. This fact has led many economists to be fascinated with the land-value tax, that is, a tax on the unimproved value of land, excluding structures. Henry George even believed that a single tax on land should replace all other taxes.[3] Milton Friedman called the land-value tax “the least bad tax.”

The reason economists have sometimes been fascinated with the land-value tax is that the immobility of land means that taxing its value causes no distortions. There’s nothing the landowner can do to escape the burden of a land-value tax, because its value is set in the market and determined by the general demand for land in the locality.

In practice, however, land-value taxation has been infeasible because it is difficult to assess what the value of a piece of developed land would have been had it not been developed. It’s especially difficult to do this assessment when there aren’t many comparable pieces of undeveloped land, as in built-up cities.[4]

Assessing the value of real estate, including improvements, is much easier, because it is easier to find comparable properties. But taxing the value of improvements can also discourage property owners from upgrading or developing their land.

On the capital-taxation view of the property tax, real estate is partially interchangeable with other forms of capital investment. Therefore, the higher the property taxes, the lower the return to capital in the economy in general (because people will pull investment from real estate and put it into, say, the stock market, reducing the return to capital).[5] Since owners of capital tend to be richer, this theory says that the property tax is progressive.

In the view of public economist and property tax researcher Peter Mieszkowski, property taxes also have a consumption-tax aspect. His model predicts that workers and landowners in places with higher-than-average property taxes suffer an “excise tax” that is roughly equivalent to a subsidy for workers and landowners in places with lower-than-average property taxes, so the net effect of average property taxes on the national economy is to reduce the return on capital. To the extent that property taxes therefore discourage business investment, then just like corporate income taxes, they might not be very progressive after all, because lower business investment reduces labor productivity and wages.[6]

The benefit-tax view comes from Charles Tiebout’s model of household choice of local government.[7] If there are lots of local jurisdictions, it’s easy for households to move from one to another. If, further, the costs and benefits of taxes and public services tend to stay within the borders of each jurisdiction, then people will tend to “sort” into communities that offer the mix of taxes and public services that best suits their preferences. In fact, Tiebout’s model is one of only a few ways economists have discovered to provide “nonexcludable” goods efficiently. (Nonexcludable goods can’t be withheld even from people who don’t pay for them, giving people an incentive to “free-ride” and accept the benefits without contributing. An example is a national missile defense system — you can’t let people opt out of paying for it because they’ll still be protected regardless of whether or not they pay.)

Now, suppose that households pay for local public services with property taxes. If a local government taxes too much and offers poor-quality public services, then families and businesses won’t want to move to that jurisdiction. As demand for real estate falls, so will property values.

Because your property values fall by the amount of the waste, you as a homeowner can’t really “escape” if your local government becomes wasteful. Some economists see this as a negative of property taxes.[8] But it’s also a positive, because it means property taxes don’t distort behavior as much. A local income tax, by contrast, would drive workers to flee to lower-tax jurisdictions even if wages were a bit lower there, meaning that labor wouldn’t necessarily be allocated to where it’s most productive.

Because homeowners’ (and businesses’) property values fall if their local governments provide bad value for money, homeowners and businesses have a strong reason to monitor their local government for good performance, claims economist William Fischel.[9] Indeed, homeowners are far more likely than renters to vote in local elections and participate in public hearings.[10] Economists disagree about how effective “homevoters” are in making local governments efficient.

On the “benefit tax” view, property taxes are good because households sort themselves into jurisdictions that offer higher or lower levels of taxes and benefits. Property taxes are then simply the market price for local public goods. More precisely, the services that local governments provide (parks, schools, security) become “club goods,” excludable to nonresidents who don’t pay property taxes, rather than “public goods,” which are nonexcludable.

For this result to be obtained, households have to sort themselves not just by tastes but by ability to pay. Otherwise, lower-capacity households would “chase” the wealthy, to enjoy high-quality public services at low cost. Some economists have suggested that localities can use zoning regulations to prevent “free-riding” by effectively requiring households to purchase enough property that the taxes they pay will cover the cost of the services they enjoy.[11]

The cost of this policy solution is greater socioeconomic segregation. Localities might still want to allow some socioeconomic diversity because different types of labor are complementary – thus, property values might be higher and taxes lower if local businesses have access to some less-skilled labor – but decentralization of local finance and zoning does lead to a considerable degree of socioeconomic segregation in the real world.[12]

With zoning regulations restricting housing supply in many parts of the US and driving up costs, some states are now moving to preempt or override local rules to expand housing access. If state preemption fully eliminated fiscal zoning, then we would expect property taxes to operate more like a capital tax, because lower-income households would be attracted to wealthier jurisdictions where they could free-ride on the taxes paid by wealthier households.

But property taxes also give local jurisdictions a reason not to make their zoning regulations too strict. Allowing multifamily and commercial development, in particular, grows the property tax base and reduces the burden on existing property owners.[13] In fact, the states with the strictest limits on development, like California and Hawaii, are also among the least property-tax-dependent states, while Texas, the most open state to development, has high property taxes.

Economists agree that property taxes are, in fact, some combination of a benefit tax and a capital tax. Where they disagree is the extent to which one view or the other better describes the majority of property tax systems. The benefit-tax view helps us realize that to understand how the property tax works, we also need to understand what it pays for. The capital-tax view helps us realize that the more the situation deviates from the ideal model of competitive, self-funding local governments, the more progressive and inefficient the property tax is.

It has been difficult to design empirical studies to test the benefit-tax and capital-tax views. One study, however, firmly shows that, as expected, a property-tax increase with no local benefit works like a capital tax.[14] This study investigated a school finance reform in New Hampshire, in place from 1999 to 2011, that redistributed property tax revenue from high-property-value municipalities to low-property-value municipalities. As the capital-tax view would predict, property values fell in the places that lost revenue (and had to make up for it with tax increases and spending cuts) and rose in the places that gained it (and could then cut taxes). Moreover, in places without strict zoning regulations, property values didn’t rise as much, and instead residential building increased. These tended to be more rural locations.

Interpreting this study, Wallace Oates and William Fischel conclude that the benefit-tax view is more appropriate than the capital-tax view when all of the following conditions are met:

  1. Local property tax revenue is used to fund local services that benefit the property taxpayers. This condition does not hold for school finance in states like California and New Mexico, where new property tax revenue cannot be used to improve local schools, or for local governments in states like Idaho or Michigan where property taxes are so strictly capped that localities depend on transfers from state government to fund local services. It is weakened in states like Texas or New Hampshire between 1999 and 2011 where some of higher-value communities’ revenues are redistributed away.
  2. The local governments that provide public services and levy property taxes can use “fiscal zoning” to deter free-riding. This condition does not hold in many rural areas with relatively unrestricted land use.
  3. Sufficient competition and choice exists among local governments in a metropolitan area to create strong incentives to provide good value for money. This condition is weak in most of the South and West, where counties are often more significant providers of local services than municipalities are.[15]

Options for Reform

In thinking about whether property taxes should be capped or eliminated, economists suggest we should contrast them with the alternative revenue sources that would have to replace them (assuming no cuts in spending).

Income taxes are generally more harmful than property taxes because they penalize work, human capital formation, and investment.[16] Local income taxes should distort economic activity more than state income taxes, because it is easier to escape a municipality than a state. In fact, localities may not be able to raise enough revenue if they depend on income taxes alone, because tax competition will drive rates toward zero. Perhaps that means local public services would have to be privatized, but, in that event, private homeowners’ associations are likely to use fee structures remarkably similar to property taxes.

Sales taxes are arguably less harmful than income taxes because they do not directly discourage work, training, and investment. Nevertheless, they do distort consumption decisions and discourage exchange, the foundation of a market economy. Sales taxes are also inefficient because they tax business inputs, discriminating against more complex forms of production. (Value-added taxes avoid this problem but are nearly unknown in the US.) Sales taxes are impractical as a primary municipal revenue source because municipalities vary greatly in terms of their retail development. Replacing property taxes with sales taxes would inevitably mean centralizing fiscal policy in state government, which would dole out revenue to local governments, probably making them less responsive to their residents.

Property taxes are less popular than sales and income taxes because they are more visible.[17] But that might be an advantage of the property tax, since it gives property owners a strong incentive to hold their local governments accountable for performance and provision of value.

Finally, both income and sales taxes are much more volatile and less dependable than property taxes. Income and sales tax revenues go up in good times and down in bad times, while property tax revenues are more consistent. For example, property tax revenues in the US remained nearly constant through the Great Recession.[18]

Unless residents’ property tax burdens are completely disconnected from the public services they receive, economists typically recommend reforming property taxes rather than abolishing them.[19]

Property tax caps have historically proven popular, but they can be badly designed. A study of assessment limits in Georgia found that house prices rise fully to take into account the tax benefit of the assessment limit, worsening affordability for first-time homebuyers and renters.[20] In California, Proposition 13’s assessment limits have locked homeowners into place and created commonplace situations in which neighbors have vastly different property tax burdens. Simply capping property tax rates also doesn’t necessarily do much, because if assessed values rise, the effective property tax burden as a share of income can still rise a lot.

For that reason, a more effective reform might be to cap property tax revenue per household, with an exemption for new growth and perhaps an inflation adjustment, and require a public vote to override the cap. This is essentially how Utah’s Truth in Taxation law works, but it simply requires a public hearing instead of a public vote and does not include an inflation adjustment. A reform like that could hold property tax burdens in check, while still providing an opportunity for local voters to tax themselves more if they want to (and prevent situations where local governments seek state bailouts because they can’t raise enough of their own revenue).

More controversially, one economist has proposed eliminating not just assessment caps, but lags in assessments (requiring annual reassessments) and homestead exemptions that reduce the property tax burden for owner-occupants.[21] The last reform, in particular, is likely to prove politically unpopular, because the primary beneficiaries would be nonresident (and nonvoter!) owners of second homes.

Conclusion

Regardless of where we come out on the question of how to reform property taxes, an understanding of economics and some careful thinking should make our policy choices wiser than they would be if based upon facile slogans and sloppy reasoning.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, property taxes don’t generally hit the poor harder than the rich, and they don’t give more power to the government than other kinds of taxes. They may discourage property owners from making improvements, which a land-value tax could solve, but at the same time, assessing the value of land is a harder problem than assessing the value of real estate.

Abolishing, or drastically capping, property taxes would centralize government at the state level, making local governments less responsive to residents, especially homeowners. The main alternative revenue sources—like income and sales taxes—also tend to cause more economic harm and waste.

To keep property tax burdens reasonable while allowing citizens to have ample freedom to choose a menu of local government services that meets their needs, policymakers could consider reforms that put more power into the hands of local voters to review and veto budget increases, and that refrain from redistributing property tax revenue from some localities to others.


Endnotes

[1] The only state with a significant state-level property tax today, according to the Census Bureau, is Vermont. But figures for Vermont are misleading, because while the state government enacts a statewide education property tax, it allows local governments to adopt “top-up” property tax rates for extra school funds, and the Census Bureau counts these as state rather than local revenues.

[2] Oates, Wallace E. 1969. “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property

Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis,” Journal of Political

Economy 77 (6): 957–971; Aaron, Henry J. 1975. Who Pays the Property Tax? A New View. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

[3] George, Henry. 1912 [1879]. Progress and Poverty, 4th ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co.

[4] Albouy, David, Gabriel Ehrlich, and Minchul Shin. 2018. “Metropolitan Land Values,” Review of Economics and Statistics 100 (3): 454-466.

[5] Mieszkowski, Peter, 1972. “The Property Tax: An Excise Tax or a Profits Tax?” Journal of Public

Economics 1 (1): 73–96; Zodrow, George R., and Peter Mieszkowski. 1986. “The New View of the Property Tax: A Reformulation,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 16 (August): 309–327.

[6] Oates, Wallace E., and William A. Fischel. 2016. “Are Local Property Taxes Regressive, Progressive, or What?” National Tax Journal 69 (2): 415–434.

[7] Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416-424.

[8] Caplan, Bryan. 2001. “Standing Tiebout on His Head: Tax Capitalization and the Monopoly Power of Local Governments.” Public Choice 108 (1): 101–122.

[9] Fischel, William A. 2001. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

[10] Einstein, Katherine Levine, David M. Glick, and Maxwell Palmer. Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[11] Hamilton, Bruce W. 1975. “Zoning and Property Taxation in a System of Local Governments,” Urban Studies 12 (2): 205–211.

[12] Rothwell, Jonathan T., and Douglas S. Massey. 2010. “Density Zoning and Class Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas,” Social Science Quarterly 91 (5): 1123–1143; Bourassa, Steven C., and Wen-Chieh Wu. 2022. “Tiebout Sorting, Zoning, and Property Tax Rates,” Urban Science 6 (1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6010013.

[13] Gallagher, Ryan M. 2019. “Restrictive Zoning’s Deleterious Impact on the Local Education Property Tax Base: Evidence from Zoning District Boundaries and Municipal Finances,” National Tax Journal 72 (1): 11–44.

[14] Lutz, Byron. 2015. “Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Connection between Property Taxes and Residential Capital Investment,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7 (1): 300–330.

[15] Oates and Fischel, “Are Local Property Taxes Regressive,” 415–434.

[16] Bartik, Timothy J. 1992. “The Effects of State and Local Taxes on Economic Development: A Review of Recent Research,” Economic Development Quarterly 6(1): 102–111.

[17] Some empirical evidence from an unpublished NBER working paper suggests that where fewer homeowners pay property taxes through escrow, property tax rates are lower. Cabral, Marika and Caroline Hoxby. 2012. “The Hated Property Tax: Salience, Tax Rates, and Tax Revolts.” NBER Working Paper 18514, https://www.nber.org/papers/w18514.

[18] Alm, James. 2013. “A Convenient Truth: Property Taxes and Revenue Stability,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15 (1): 243–245.

[19] Walczak, Jared. 2024. “Confronting the New Property Tax Revolt,” Tax Foundation (November), https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/property-tax-relief-reform-options/.

[20] Horton, Emily, Cameron LaPoint, Byron Lutz, Nathan Seegert, and Jared Walczak. 2024. “Property Tax Policy and Housing Affordability,” National Tax Journal 77 (4): 861–901.

[21] Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. 2013. “The Property Tax Is a Bad Tax, but It Need Not Be,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15 (1): 256–259.

Despite occasional political friction, the United States and Canada remain deeply intertwined economically and culturally. Their similarities make them ideal for comparison — especially when investigating the causes of rising rents and housing prices, which have surged in lockstep in both countries.

Between 2019 and 2024, Canada’s median home price skyrocketed 45 percent to CN $481,745, according to Zoocasa. In the United States, the increase was 34 percent over the same period, landing at $426,800, per the St. Louis Fed.

Rental costs followed suit. Nerdwallet reported Canadian average earnings rose 74.3 percent from 2003 to 2023, but home prices ballooned 227 percent. US income grew 86 percent, but home prices climbed 135 percent. Rents nearly doubled in both nations.

So, what’s to blame for this housing inflation? According to regulators on both sides of the border, the culprit is property management software — specifically, artificial intelligence-driven pricing tools like RealPage’s rent optimization algorithm. These tools suggest optimal rent levels based on a property’s characteristics and local market conditions. Politicians allege these AI tools amount to collusion, functioning as high-tech price-fixing. This regulation-happy narrative couldn’t be further from the truth.

A Fallacy of Central Planning

In Canada, a class-action lawsuit filed last December targets RealPage and 14 property management firms. However, the AI pricing tool in question is barely used there — it accounts for no more than 1 percent of the Canadian rental market, and even then, the pricing algorithm is not used — the software is largely relegated to back-office bookkeeping. Yet, Canada’s rent still surged. The software didn’t cause the crisis — it’s merely a scapegoat for deeper systemic problems.

Still, politicians and the press are pressing forward.

In the US, the now-departed Biden DOJ launched an antitrust suit that mirrors the Canadian claims. Senator Amy Klobuchar has also introduced legislation aimed at “curbing” rental AI software.

As Friedrich Hayek warned, “The more the state ‘plans,’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” 

This is a textbook case of regulatory overreach founded on a flawed assumption: that prices are made in boardrooms or by algorithms, rather than in the marketplace through voluntary exchange and supply-demand dynamics.

The Real Drivers: Cantillon Effects and Regulatory Distortion

If we’re serious about diagnosing the problem, we must consider the Austrian theory of malinvestment and Cantillon effects. Central banks’ decade-long policy of artificially low interest rates — pushed under the guise of stimulus — has distorted capital allocation. Cheap credit flooded into real estate markets, fueling speculative bubbles and driving up housing prices beyond what middle-class incomes could support.

At the same time, government-imposed zoning restrictions, construction permit delays, and rent control laws have stifled the supply of new housing. This is a classic example of what Ludwig von Mises called interventionism — a patchwork of state interference that produces unintended consequences worse than the problems it seeks to solve.

A Toronto survey by Simplydbs reveals the public understands what many policymakers do not. Renters cited inflation, limited housing construction, and high ownership costs as the primary causes of rising rents. Landlords ranked lowest. The market participants themselves see the truth.

Spontaneous Order, Not Bureaucratic Panic

The market process is decentralized. Prices convey knowledge dispersed among millions of actors — what Hayek called the “use of knowledge in society.” AI pricing tools merely aggregate this knowledge more efficiently. They do not override it. Banning such tools won’t bring prices down. It will only cripple landlords’ ability to respond to local conditions in real time — likely causing even more inefficiencies.

Moreover, this crackdown on AI rent tools is not a principled stand against monopoly or collusion. It’s a case of political theater — an attempt to externalize blame for inflation that was caused by governments and central banks themselves. As Mises wrote, “Government is the only agency that can take a useful commodity like paper, slap some ink on it, and make it totally worthless.”

We are living with the consequences of unsound money, bad regulation, and housing policy shaped by political expediency, not market principles. That is the root of rent inflation — not software, and certainly not landlords using modern tools to navigate distorted markets.

If the goal is affordable housing, the answer lies in removing the regulatory roadblocks, ending monetary inflation, and letting the market perform its coordinating function free from coercive interference. Anything else is just a detour on the road to serfdom.

On May 16, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the US government’s long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings from Aaa (the highest possible rating) to Aa1 and revised the outlook to stable from negative. The rating agency cited the likelihood of “persistent, large fiscal deficits [that] will drive the government’s debt and interest burden higher” due to deficits driven by increasing entitlement spending and plateauing tax revenues.

Moody’s, however, was late to the party. S&P Global ratings downgraded the US government’s credit rating in 2011, and Fitch Ratings issued a downgrade in 2023. Both cited similar concerns over growing budget deficits and doubts about the ability to pay them.

Unfortunately, when the US cannot keep its finances in order, American families will feel the squeeze through higher borrowing costs, higher taxes, a more aggressive tax collection regime, and a weaker dollar.

Government Debt Hurts Private Borrowers

At a basic level, the yield curve (a visual representation of how much it costs the Treasury to borrow money for different periods of time) serves as a benchmark for market interest rates, including corporate bonds and mortgage rates. Much like when a credit score downgrade results in higher personal borrowing costs, the US credit downgrade will mean higher borrowing costs to offset the increased risk of lending. These higher borrowing costs will be reflected on the yield curve and prompt private creditors to raise interest rates to firms and individuals as well.

Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan noted that when private investors purchase government debt, they forgo the next-highest valued use of their capital. As Buchanan put it, spending that is funded by debt is “in effect chopping up the apple trees for firewood, thereby reducing the yield of the orchard forever.” 

Government borrowing diverts capital from more productive private sector uses (i.e. research, innovation, and/or business expansion) that could help improve the standard of living for everyday Americans.

Furthermore, the government’s growing demand for loanable funds puts upward pressure on interest rates (the price of borrowing). Lenders will demand higher returns, and individual borrowers will need to offer more competitive terms to access credit. This means higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, and personal loans.

Government Debt Hurts Taxpayers

As the US government faces higher borrowing costs, net interest payments (the interest the government must pay on its debt, offset by interest income) will dramatically increase. The image below comes from the AIER Explainer “Financing the Federal Government: How Government Takes & Spends Your Money”; it depicts a breakdown of how the federal government spent each dollar in FY 2024, which ended on October 1, 2024, long before the Moody’s downgrade.

Sources: “Tables B-1-B-5 and Supplemental Tables” in The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035. Design inspired by Heritage Foundation, National Priorities Project, and The Atlantic. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Note that 13.5 cents of every dollar went to net interest payments. As borrowing costs increase, more spending is dedicated to net interest payments, which then crowds out funding for other federal programs. My former colleague Brooklyn Roberts and I discussed this after the Fitch Rating downgrade in August 2023, noting that cuts to transfer payments (particularly Medicaid) to state and local governments would be seen by federal policymakers as more politically viable than addressing bloated federal programs.

So far, the federal government has spent $578.7 billion on net interest payments out of the $4.16 trillion spent this fiscal year. In other words, 14 cents of every dollar this fiscal year is going to net interest payments, which is likely to increase by the end of FY 2025.

Buchanan also noted that debt-financed spending shifts tax burdens from present to future generations. While bond investors trust that their loan will be paid back with interest, future generations will bear the cost of the government spending undertaken today. 

A Declining Dollar Hurts Everyone

The credit downgrade, along with uncertainty in monetary policy, has hurt the dollar. The US Dollar Index (DXY) fell following the credit downgrade announcement and continues to decline. Analysts also note that the decline in demand for Treasury notes also led to a decline in demand for dollars.

As the demand for the dollar decreases, a sell-off of dollar assets could increase the supply of dollars in the foreign exchange market, leading to further depreciation in the dollar’s value. This depreciation is likely to lead to reduced living standards, weaker economic growth, and higher inflation.

Ultimately, policymakers in Washington are only hurting themselves. As my colleague Pete Earle aptly put it:

“The greatest threat to the soundness and utility of the US dollar, and in turn to the financial health and prosperity of American civil and commercial life, comes not from shadowy figures in faraway lands, but from unremarkable apparatchiks carrying out the edicts of US officialdom.”

As the US loses its status as the world’s reserve currency, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have no one to blame but themselves.

Can Washington Course Correct?

Earle notes that there is still time to correct course through “economically coherent, consistently applied policies.” Ultimately, this must come from serious spending reform and (particularly) spending reduction.

My colleague Ryan Yonk and I lay out several options for spending reform in the AIER Explainer “Understanding Public Debt.” While the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seemed to get off to a promising start in January, it failed to tackle the primary driver of spending growth: entitlements. Worse, members of Congress have thus far failed to make the few cuts DOGE recommended permanent. Now, DOGE Director Elon Musk is stepping down.

After the news of Musk’s DOGE exit broke, a headline from The Babylon Bee quipped “Elon Musk Leaves Job Of Making Government More Efficient For Much Easier Job Of Sending Humans To Mars.” 

Reversing course is possible, but it will demand political courage and coordination to overcome the incentives millions in the federal government have to maintain “business as usual.” Let’s hope such a transformation is still possible.