Posted on 09/28/2005 12:14:25 PM PDT by hripka
A change in a tax affects that area of the economy . . . and beyond. Taxes hurt whatever is taxed. Income taxes hurt income (production). Sales taxes hurt sales (consumption). Higher rates have higher effects.
After having read "The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS" by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, I realized that the 'FairTax' proposed by Boortz and Linder would change EVERYTHING. The 'FairTax' is not tax reform, it is tax upheaval. Since it taxes consumption instead of income, consumption WILL fall, and incomes WILL rise. All of the incentives (and penalties) enacted into the current tax code would, at least be neutralized, or perhaps go into reverse.
A frugal person might be in favor of a 'FairTax' (National Retail Sales Tax, NRST) because the United States is consuming too much and needs more income. Considering our multiple deficits, (federal budget, international trade, consumer debt, etc.) cutting consumption and increasing income might not be a bad thing, but only to a point. However, the 'FairTaxers' assume minimal transition costs. They are VERY mistaken. The day of the change itself would be minor, but then the 'FairTax' would change EVERYTHING.
A list (in no particular order) put together by an amateur, not a tax professional:
List of those who would benefit under the 'FairTax' plan:
1. Business/production in general
2. All income-producing activities that were previously taxed, dividend payers, capital gains, etc.
3. Savers. Thrift and frugality will now be rewarded.
4. Activities that were formerly penalized: Alternative minimum tax payers, estate tax payers, gift tax payers, etc.
5. Corporate bonds, as compared to government bonds
6. Cash and bartering transactions
7. eBay for handling used transactions, also flea markets, second-hand stores, rummage/garage sales
8. Current owners of houses, cars, clothes, household goods. The answer on pg. 162-163 ignores existing houses. It states that *new* houses will decline in price, but go right back up again due to the 'FairTax'. And existing houses?
9. Companies will start a Company Store for tax-free employee benefits
10. Home-based activities: sewing, knitting, cooking, fruit and vegetable gardening at home, home repair, do-it-yourself, self reliance
11. Refurbishing of standing 'used' real estate
12. Smuggling, especially of portable high-value goods
13. Warren Buffett, who doesn't sell due to capital gains taxes which are now eliminated
14. Indian tribes could offer tax-free stores, and their casinos aren't affected
and others ? ?
List of those who would be hurt under the 'FairTax' plan:
1. Consumers/spenders in general
2. All retail establishments
2a. less impacted: those catering to home-based activities such as groceries, home improvement, etc.
2b. Internet-based retailers
2c. most impacted: portable high-value goods such as stamp, coin, jewelry dealers which might even close due to smuggling
3. Federal Government temporarily, due to initial tax simplification
4. IRS employees, tax accountants and lobbyists, HR Block, Intuit, etc.
5. Government bonds, (no longer tax-advantaged) as compared to corporate bonds
6. Roth IRA account holders (despite pg. 120-121 that a principle of the 'FairTax' that everything should be taxed only once)
7. Charitable donations to charities and churches, due to loss of tax deductible giving
8. All currently tax-exempt organizations, their comparative advantage is reduced.
9. Home real estate in general due to loss of tax deductible interest, a major selling point.
10. New real estate developments - especially near cities with old housing
11. Residents of states that don't currently have a sales tax, those states will enact their own sales tax
12. Taxpayers living in states or cities with high income or high property taxes, which are no longer deductible
13. Anything currently tax-advantaged through credits and deductions, i.e. conservation efforts, high medical bills, victims of casualty and theft losses, child and adoption tax credits, capital losses, etc.
14. Tax-advantaged 401k's, no reason to have them ? though savings in general will increase
15. China, Japan, etc., countries that currently export to us
16. All non-Indian casinos and lotteries. Casinos have to pay in effect a 23% income tax on gross profits (gross receipts minus payoffs and other taxes)!? My reading of Section 702(e).
and others ? ?
Remember, this is a list put together by an amateur, not a tax professional. Are there others affected, positively or negatively? Where am I wrong? Read my tagline.
A tax hurts what is taxed. That is how I came up with this list.
Wrong generation, the Greatest Generation is in its final years. You are talking about the front end of the Baby Boomers.
This is why I mentioned that retail sales would decline. Hopefully income and exports would increase.
BTW, there is no incentive to save under the consumption tax like there is with an income tax.
Wow, I thought that the income tax hurts income (i.e. interest). The FairTax consumption tax at least doesn't tax that.
bunch of faulty assumptions in your list.
Retirees will take it in the rear under the fair tax. All the money they saved over their whole career will overnight see a reduction in purchasing power of roughly 20%. If you call that coming out ahead, I don't know what to tell you. People earning income will see their paychecks go up to compensate, fixed income people are S-C-R-E-W-E-D.
If you pay a high income tax rate right now... it's because you choose to.
Oh you forgot... they're gonna let you have food and water without paying taxes on it. :)
This has been shown to be FALSE. The FairTax study assumed that wages would be reduced to current take-home pay levels in order to remove the embedded tax costs from the pricing in products. See these threads for the whole story:
JORGENSON EXPLODES FAIRTAX MYTH (FR Exclusive) |
||
Posted by RobFromGa On News/Activism 08/25/2005 12:40:44 AM EDT · 701 replies · 7,599+ views |
||
MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller [FairTax myth busted by major magazine] |
||
Posted by Your Nightmare On News/Activism 09/08/2005 7:48:28 AM EDT · 238 replies · 2,830+ views |
Assume I am purchasing an illegal item (drugs, prostitution, etc.)
1. Under a FairTax I don't pay tax on my income.
2. I don't think that the dealer/prostitute will be collecting ANY sales tax.
3. When the dealer/prostitute spends my money, then it will be taxed. But remember, I wasn't taxed in step 1, so wouldn't it be the same as now, just taxed at a later step?
The Mob
The Mob might be a great beneficiary of a FairTax due to vastly increased smuggling opportunites.
Do you think?
WRT 48, thanks Rob.
Could you expand on that please?
"What makes you think that consumption will rebound? Why would products be cheaper?"
I am saying that the before tax price is cheaper. I am not completely convinced that the after tax price will be cheaper. I am still a little skeptical in this area but believe it will be within 5% of the pre-Fair-Tax-implementaion. Consumption will rebound based on citizens having more disposable income.
"If you do the math comparing the difference in the prices you cite (20%) and the employment tax, you are off by more than 10%."
I was using round numbers because I am not completely convinced that Boortz/Linder have their percentages correct and there is lots of debate. I didn't do math just used an example.
"I think you haven't thought through this, and just making claims is not making sense, in and of itself."
On the contrary, I have thought this through extensively. I have and continue to educate myself on it. I have several concerns with the details that I have cited in posts before. I am not a dead head, die hard advocate of all of the details, but the premise of the Fair Tax is ideolically and economically sound. I don't drink Fair Tax Coolaide, I am expressing my thoughts and opinions like everyone else. I am an educated, articulate, active, voting member of society that pays way too much in taxes to a government that spends way to much money on wastefull politically driven pet projects that are never fiscally well accounted for.
I do not always spell to good though (this is intellectual humor).
But anyone who saved money before after paying taxes on it, will be HURT because the same money will be taxed again when it is useed for consumption.
John Linder refers to the FAIR TAX very often as a "tax on accumulated wealth". He did this again last week on the air with Boortz at a luncheon with FairTax supporters in the audience.
He also stated that he can't believe the Democrats are not all for it because it will heavily impact people like Teresa Heinz-Kerry who have a lot of money accumulated. They continue to refer to the plan as a financial "bonanza" even though obviously there can't be a bonanza for everyone and collect the same amount of money.
The FairTax Plan is snake oil and until the proponents are willing to argue their plan honestly there is no real point in debating it.
1. I am not sure how purchases made abroad by Americans are taxed. Section 101-d-1 of HR25 implies that the 'FairTax' is a Use Tax. I have seen other information that purchases made abroad are 'FairTax'-free. If it is the latter, then foreign purchases by Americans will skyrocket. See also the US Supreme Court decision of North Dakota vs. Quill Corporation regarding the use tax.
2. I read Section 102-a-2 to mean that (initial public offerings) IPOs are not taxed, but would investment real estate be taxed?
3. Also, if a 'FairTax' is only levied on final retail sales, the 'fair tax' rate will have to be MUCH higher than 23% (inclusive) or 30% (exclusive rate). Today the feds spend 2.5 trillion. The GDP is over 11 trillion. Approximately two-thirds of that (7.26 trillion) is consumer spending. 2.5 trillion divided by 7.26 trillion is a federal sales tax rate of 34%. To say that government will pay taxes to itself is a circular argument. On a 77 cent item, everyone pays $1. When the government pays for it, it goes back into its own pocket. Sure a dollar comes out of the government's right pocket, but 23 cents goes immediately into the left pocket. If that isn't the epitome of an 'embedded' tax, then what is?
I put Roth IRA holders in the 'loser' category for precisely the reasons you state.
Please don't go back to that again.
I read all of it, the posts, the articles, the studies, everything. Lots of reading and time spent. There are compelling cases that amounts to the percentage of the tax relative to what company's would have to do to lower the pretax price of goods based on the studies. It is simply symantics of what the price of goods would be within a couple of percentage points based on the final percentage of Fair Tax applied to goods.
Most small business people spend a small percentage of their time and money for filling out corporate tax forms. Almost every single small business owner I have talked with doesn't want to see a major change like this made which endangers the entire economy and everything they have built in the likley case that the FairTax proponents are wrong in their rosy assumptions.
They continue to lie about the plan, so I have no confidence in their statements.
You may be correct....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.