Skip to content
MiltonFriedman.org

Milton Friedman on Taxes

I favor it on economic grounds because it enables the ultimate consumer—the ultimate individual, you and me—to decide how the money should be used. You know, it makes no sense for me to send my money to Washington to have somebody in Washington decide how to use it. I’d rather decide how to use it myself—whether for charity or for welfare or for other purposes. So that’s the first and most important argument. But the political argument for it is that it’s the only way to keep Congress from spending it. … That’s why for a long time now I have been in favor of any tax cut, under any circumstances, in any way, in any form whatsoever.

Context. Asked about the third option for handling the federal budget surplus, tax cuts, and whether he favors it above all. The ellipsis marks a question from Peter Robinson, “Only if Congress doesn’t have the money can it be prevented from spending it?”, and the word “Right.” with which his answer begins.

Friedman on the Surplus
Interview, 2001, Interview by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, January 17, 2001; adapted in Hoover Digest 2001 No. 2
Checked against the sourceRead the transcript

Where this comes from

Checked against the sourceThe wording was checked against the work itself.

Cite this passage

Milton Friedman, “Friedman on the Surplus” (Interview by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, January 17, 2001; adapted in Hoover Digest 2001 No. 2, 2001). https://miltonfriedman.org/quotes/favor-any-tax-cut-any-circumstances-2001

Quoted for commentary and research. Rights in the underlying work remain with its rights holder, so cite the work itself, not only this page.

Topics

He also said

  1. There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. … Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.

    Context. From David Asman’s May 15, 2004 interview with him, published by Fox News. Earlier in the conversation he had argued that education and medicine share one problem, third-party payment: someone gets a service from someone else who is paid by a third party; he then blamed that for medicine’s complications.

    Interview with David Asman
    Interview, 2004, Fox News, May 15, 2004; transcript published by Fox News as “‘Your World’ Interview With Economist Milton Friedman”
    Checked against the sourceRead the source
  2. A voluntary army would preserve the freedom of individuals to serve or not to serve. Or, put the other way, it would avoid the arbitrary power that now resides in draft boards to decide how a young man shall spend several of the most important years of his life—let alone whether his life shall be risked in warfare.

    Context. From a paper he gave at a conference on the draft at the University of Chicago in December 1966, arguing that the United States should move to an all-volunteer armed force. His case is for peacetime: in the same paper he grants that “for a major war, a strong case can be made for compulsory service.” This is the second of the advantages he lists, under the heading “Individual freedom”.

    Why Not a Voluntary Army?
    Journal article, 1966, Paper for the conference on the draft held at the University of Chicago in December 1966, sponsored by the Ford Foundation and chaired by Sol Tax; reprinted in full in the Congressional Record, House, March 9, 1967, pp. 6098 to 6100, inserted by Representative Donald Rumsfeld among four conference papers on a voluntary army., Congressional Record, March 9, 1967, p. 6098
    Checked against the sourceRead the original
  3. Our problems have arisen from good people who are trying to do good, but trying to do good in a fundamentally flawed way. The welfare state is in many ways a noble construct, a noble concept. It's the concept that we ought to help our fellow men. … What flaws it is that it's one thing for you to help me out of your pocket. It's another thing for you to help me out of his pocket. And the fundamental flaw of the welfare state, in my opinion, is the idea that you should do good with somebody else's money.

    Context. Right after saying that the strategic necessity is a change in the climate of opinion that substitutes a belief in individual responsibility for what he calls the false belief in social responsibility, and that the problems have not come from evil people or a conspiracy.

    The Open Mind
    Interview, 1977, The Open Mind, hosted by Richard Heffner, Episode “A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” (May 3, 1977)
    Checked against the sourceWatch it

Think this quote is wrong, misattributed, or missing context? Report it and it gets fixed, not argued with.