the Fair Tax

[Hooahguy]

i came across the Fair Tax when reading a newspaper article on the history of the US tax policy.
it sounds interesting

thoughts?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It places more of a burden on the middle class according to studies.

[Hooahguy]

not true, according to the site

[Yoyoma1910]

not true, according to the site

Do you think a place called "fairtax.org" is going to give you impartial information on the "Fair Tax?"



While we're at it, I hear heroin has no side effects from the site www.heroinisgoodforyou.bs!

[Hooahguy]

but it does give the facts. i mean, how can you do a study if its never been in place?

[Yoyoma1910]

Every side to an argument will list "The Facts."


By your own logic, how do you know those are "the facts" if it has never been in place?

[CountArach]

While we're at it, I hear heroin has no side effects from the site www.heroinisgoodforyou.bs!

Your link doesn't work.

[Xiahou]

It places more of a burden on the middle class according to studies.

In that many of us will have to actually have to start paying a federal income tax, yes.

The fair tax is.... well, fair. I just don't think we could realistically implement it in our current circumstances. Unfortunately, the bloated size of our government requires at least some sort of progressive taxation in order to fund it. I would like to see the tax rates flattened and the tax code simplified (eliminate most credits/deductions), though.

[seireikhaan]

Frankly, the US will never realistically do a flat tax. My view is that if a country is going to implement a fair tax, they'll have to sacrifice a lot of spending. And people in the US frankly want it doing more and more every year. Not to mention how it always seems that the government can build one project and spend twice the cash on it that a private enterprise does. Never have figured that part out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Frankly, the US will never realistically do a flat tax. My view is that if a country is going to implement a fair tax, they'll have to sacrifice a lot of spending. And people in the US frankly want it doing more and more every year. Not to mention how it always seems that the government can build one project and spend twice the cash on it that a private enterprise does. Never have figured that part out.

What's the evidence for that exactly? Not that I disagree, I just never see any specific examples beyond that "600$ for a toilet seat" nonsense.

[seireikhaan]

The hundreds of millions that seem to be spent on roads?

[Pannonian]

Am I the only person doubtful about any plan with the name "Fair Tax", as with "Patriot Act", "No Child Left Behind", etc? It's as though they can't persuade people without accusing opponents of favouring unfair taxes, being unpatriotic, leaving children behind, etc.

[Strike For The South]

Am I the only person doubtful about any plan with the name "Fair Tax", as with "Patriot Act", "No Child Left Behind", etc? It's as though they can't persuade people without accusing opponents of favouring unfair taxes, being unpatriotic, leaving children behind, etc.

Thats kind of the point...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm against the Fair Tax. I don't believe that it is necessary. I am in favor of lowering income taxes, cutting spending, and reducing loopholes.

BUT please don't call the current taxation system "fair" it is redistributive in nature. The entire modern federal government operates on a redistributive angle. I'm not saying this is wrong - roads that service everyone based on wealthy peoples tax generated revenue isn't "fair" but it is practical. Our education system attempts to give children equal access to education irrespective of their parents tax generated revenue, that isn't "fair" either, but it is a good idea (if they can ever figure out how to do it while making our kids internationally competitive)

Life isn't fair and we don't need the fair tax. We can simply limit the excesses of our redistributive system by cutting out the fat and lowering all taxes.

[Oleander Ardens]

After thinking it through I came up with a very important point which hasn't been brought up by the article: the deferred effect of the "fair tax" as it is a sales tax. This is a godsend for people which large and very large savings/investments. It won't get taxed at all until money is taking out and consumed. This is critcal fact, and perhaps one which only meets the eye/mind of somebody with a certain interest in investment.

Take the example:

Say you earn $2 million a year. You can live pretty well spending $1 million, and as a result pay a mere 11 percent of that year's income in taxes. If the very rich pay less, that means more of the total tax burden in any year has to fall on somebody else, most likely the middle class. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this really matters -- over time, a consumption tax looks more progressive because the rich savers or their descendants eventually spend the money and get taxed. But Boortz and Linder say that all this worry about progressivity at the top is just jealous carping anyway. "We have very few Communists left in this world, but there are some," says the congressman.

So you pay 220000 in taxes, leaving you with 780000. You start to invest and yield a real gain of 5% per year. You do this for 20 years you have a inflation-adjusted capital of 28.871.516 while you played in all 4400000 in taxes. It would be much less capital if you had to pay income taxes (especially capital gain hurts). But the fun continues: You give half of it to your children, let us say 5 million to each of the three. Even if the they spend each 500000 (poor children) a year you defer your taxes for some years - which safes you huge money. Clever bastards. If you are rich and earning really a lot this plan is one worth supporting against the nasty unpatriotic, unfair, unamerican communists of this nation.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm against the Fair Tax. I don't believe that it is necessary. I am in favor of lowering income taxes, cutting spending, and reducing loopholes.

BUT please don't call the current taxation system "fair" it is redistributive in nature. The entire modern federal government operates on a redistributive angle. I'm not saying this is wrong - roads that service everyone based on wealthy peoples tax generated revenue isn't "fair" but it is practical. Our education system attempts to give children equal access to education irrespective of their parents tax generated revenue, that isn't "fair" either, but it is a good idea (if they can ever figure out how to do it while making our kids internationally competitive)

Life isn't fair and we don't need the fair tax. We can simply limit the excesses of our redistributive system by cutting out the fat and lowering all taxes.

Tuff, speaking just for myself, I think any tax system is going to be unfair. I mean, what if you have two people each making 1 mill, and one person lives in an apartment paying about 40,000 a year (non deductible) and the other has a mortgage and pays about 100,000 per year? There's no way to make a single tax code that will fairly cover every possible set of choices individuals will make, or account for every kind of income, or catch every single abused deduction. I think a flat 17% tax rate is unfair, I think a progressive system is unfair (both at the bottom AND the top!), as you say, life isn't fair.

The whole "fairness" argument about taxation, to me, is like someone launching a crusade over toilets having a lot of bacteria in them. It's like, grow up already. It's a toilet. There's no way it's not going to have bacteria in it.

[Kommodus]

Here's one more useful article from a web site that is pretty good at providing a balanced and factual analysis of policies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Unspinning the FairTax
May 31, 2007
We look at the numbers behind the numbers.
Summary
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them.

Update June 14: In a letter, Americans for Fair Taxation wrote to say that it disagrees “very strongly” with FactCheck’s analysis of the FairTax. For their objections and our response, see the end of the “Analysis” section.
Analysis

How to Make 30 Look Like 23

Americans for Fair Taxation offers the following plain-language interpretation of H.R. 25:

Americans for Fair Taxation: A 23-percent (of the tax-inclusive sales price) sales tax is imposed on all retail sales for personal consumption of new goods and services.

It is the parenthetical that is important, for it hides the real truth of the tax rate.

First consider the way in which sales tax is normally figured. A consumer good that carries a $100 price tag might be subject to a 5 percent sales tax. That means that the final bill for the item is $105. The 5 percent figure is the amount of tax that is charged on the original purchase price. But now suppose that instead of pricing the item at $100, the shop owner simply priced the item at $105, then sent $5 directly to the state. The $105 price would be a tax-inclusive sales price. But $5 is just 4.8 percent of $105. That 4.8 percent number, however, is relatively meaningless. You are still paying exactly the same 5 percent tax on the item.

The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. We can begin with the same $100 item, keeping in mind that a price tag that reads $100 has sales tax already built in. If our tax rate is 23 percent of the tax-inclusive sales price, then of the $100 final price, $23 of those dollars will be for taxes, meaning that the original pre-tax price of the item is $77. To get $23 in taxes on a $77 item, one must impose a 30 percent tax. In other words, a 23 percent sales tax on the tax-inclusive sales price is equivalent to a 30 percent tax on the actual price of the item.

FairTax proponents object to the 30 percent number, claiming that critics use the larger number to frighten people. Americans for Fair Taxation claims that it uses the tax-inclusive number to make it easier to compare the FairTax to the income tax that it will replace (since most of us think of income tax rates on an inclusive basis). But we are not accustomed to thinking of sales taxes inclusively. The result is that many FairTax supporters (about 15 percent of those who wrote to us, for example) do not understand that the 23 percent figure is tax inclusive.

Our analysis of the FairTax used a figure of 34 percent as the basic exclusive tax rate. One e-mailer complained that our number was at least 10 percentage points “higher than [the FairTax] is” because we calculated it as an addition to retail prices. But our 34 percent number is not 10 percentage points higher than the legislation. A 34 percent exclusive number is equivalent to a 25 percent tax inclusive rate – only 2 percentage points higher than the FairTax bill. We think that, intentional or not, the use of the tax-inclusive 23 percent rate has misled a lot of FairTax proponents.

But 30 Is Not 34 Either

Americans for Fair Taxation, however, has complained that H.R. 25 calls for a 23 percent inclusive (or 30 percent exclusive) rate, not a 34 percent rate. Our number came from the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, which calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral. Americans for Fair Taxation has said that the Advisory Panel did not use the FairTax as detailed in the legislation but instead made up its own plan. This complaint is disingenuous. The Advisory Panel did in fact begin with the 30 percent figure that proponents of the FairTax submitted. But the panel rejected those figures, claiming that they were based, at least in part, on the unrealistic assumption that there would be full compliance with the FairTax. In other words, proponents assume that no one will cheat on taxes. However, the Treasury Department estimates that the evasion rate for the entire U.S. tax system under current law is approximately 15 percent. The Advisory Panel accordingly assumed a 15 percent evasion rate for the FairTax.

More significantly, however, the panel found that FairTax supporters were employing questionable accounting. In calculating federal revenue, proponents assumed that purchases made by the federal government would be taxed at the full 30 percent rate. But when calculating federal expenditures, FairTax proponents did not factor in the additional costs of the 30 percent sales tax. The Advisory Panel thus threw out the revenue from federal purchases, noting (correctly) that increased revenue from taxing federal purchases is exactly canceled by increased costs in the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Advisory Panel has thus far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to reconcile its projections with those of Americans for Fair Taxation.

Using a formula that corrects for the faulty assumption about government spending, William Gale, director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, calculates that a 39.3 percent exclusive rate would be necessary for revenue neutrality. (We used the lower Advisory Panel number). A more recent study by FairTax supporter and Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff – working from Gale’s formula and adopting the same basic assumptions – determines that a 31.2 percent exclusive (or 23.8 percent tax-inclusive) rate would be sufficient.

Even if Kotlikoff is correct that a 31.2 percent rate is revenue-neutral, there remains some reason to doubt that the rate actually would be that low. The FairTax proposal assumes a 100 percent tax base on consumption. By way of contrast, most states that have sales taxes have roughly a 50 percent tax base. With the FairTax’s 100 percent base, consumers would pay taxes on a great many things that may not intuitively seem like consumption. The list would include:

• Purchases of new homes
• Rent
• Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans
• Doctor bills
• Utilities
• Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed)
• Legal fees

At today’s prices, gasoline would cost almost $1 per gallon more. A $150,000 new home would run $195,000 – plus the 30 percent tax that the buyer would pay on the interest on the mortgage. In short, the FairTax taxes everything that one buys, with the one notable exception of education. Any exceptions to the tax base (for instance, eliminating rent or credit card interest from the tax base) would require an offsetting increase in the rate.

But the FairTax Will Lower Prices

Proponents of the FairTax point out that prices on consumer goods contain what are called “hidden taxes.” Under current law, corporations have to pay taxes on their earnings. Moreover, businesses have to pay social security taxes for each employee. The money to pay these taxes has to come from somewhere, and FairTax supporters argue that the cost is passed on to the consumer. In fact, the best-known proponent of the FairTax, talk-show host Neal Boortz, argues that 22 percent of the price of a consumer good is really a “hidden tax.” Get rid of corporate and social security taxes, Boortz argues, and consumer good prices would drop by 22 percent. Even with the 23 percent FairTax, prices stay the same, and with the elimination of income taxes, paychecks will get bigger. Everyone gets a raise and the federal government still gets its revenue. About 10 percent of the e-mail messages we received from FairTax proponents trumpeted this kind of magic act. It is easy to understand the confusion on the issue, as Boortz himself made similar assertions in the hardcover edition of his book. (He later issued a corrected version in paperback.)

A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.

Chris Edwards, the Cato Institute's director of tax policy studies, points out that prices do not really matter; corporate, payroll, income and estate taxes currently generate approximately $2.4 trillion, and a revenue-neutral FairTax would still require that taxpayers pony up $2.4 trillion. Nor is it clear that the 22 percent embedded tax figure is particularly meaningful. David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, calls it "simplistic" to think that the entire cost of corporate taxes is borne by consumers. Cato's Edwards suggests that while consumers do pay at least part of the costs, producers also bear some of the burden. That is, employees pay part of the costs of hidden taxes (in the form of lower wages), and corporate shareholders pay another portion (in the form of lower returns on their investments).

The FairTax: Is It Regressive?

Sometimes sales taxes are called regressive, meaning that the poorest pay higher rates than the wealthy. Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

The FairTax plan, however, helps to alleviate this difficulty by exempting sales taxes on all income up to the poverty level. Taxpayers would receive a "prebate," which Edwards calculates to be about $5,600 annually. The Treasury Department estimates that the prebate program would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually, making it the largest category of federal spending. Americans for Fair Taxation disputes the Treasury Department numbers, claiming that the actual cost would be closer to $485 billion per year. The Treasury Department has so far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to determine whose estimate is correct.

Who Really Pays?

With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.

Americans for Fair Taxation rejects the Treasury Department analysis, objecting that Treasury considers only the income tax. By leaving out payroll taxes (which are actually regressive) Treasury’s chart makes the FairTax look worse by comparison. We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.

Why Be Progressive?

It is easy to look at charts like the one above and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy.

Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden. The size of any such gains is disputed, however; Americans for Fair Taxation consistently chooses from among the most optimistic growth projections.

Upon Further Review

We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.

- by Joe Miller

[CountArach]

Am I the only person doubtful about any plan with the name "Fair Tax", as with "Patriot Act", "No Child Left Behind", etc? It's as though they can't persuade people without accusing opponents of favouring unfair taxes, being unpatriotic, leaving children behind, etc.

Not to go off topic but a lot of other things that many people have taken for granted are named in this way as well - eg Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. The implication being you are either Anti-Choice or Anti-Life if you disagree with the position.