Posted on 05/20/2008 7:11:25 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues. I think his discovery deserves to be called Hauser's Law, because it is as central to the economics of taxation as Boyle's Law is to the physics of gases. Yet economists and policy makers are barely aware of it.
Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine. Taxation is an important example. ...
Mr. Hauser uncovered the means to answer these questions definitively. On this page in 1993, he stated that "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Yeah but if everyone read it, how many would understand it.
Interesting that this makes the light of day.
Even if they could understand it, would they believe it?
And if they believed it, would they act on it, or continue along on the same path?
I’ve put the stats in front of liberals that I know, and the response I got WAS “I don’t believe your numbers”.
There’s another facet to it, as well.
Liberals don’t see taxation primarily as a means to get revenue into the government. Obama stated as much. It’s a matter of imposing their definition of “fairness”.
Like so many things, it’s the issue the politicians want, not the solution.
That IS the goal. When people are able to build wealth, they become more independent. Leftists hate that idea.
Obama thinks it is only “fair” to raise the capital gains tax, even if there is no new revenue.
This idiot will get us all poor..
Great article. This is what Republicans need to get back to... a message of lower taxes, less spending, BACKED UP BY THE STATISTICS.
“Liberals don’t see taxation primarily as a means to get revenue into the government. Obama stated as much. It’s a matter of imposing their definition of “fairness”.”
I think you’re exactly, precisely correct, it’s a means of imposing a vague “societal justice”, and typically suggested without the slightest concern as to the real-world effects.
Obama’s (and the Democrats’ in general) idea of “the rich” is anyone making over $40K/yr. The tax hikes will hurt people across most of the income spectrum. ...in a big way.
Required reading indeed. So, on average, we’re all working one day a week for the feds...way too much, I say.
Do you remember President Reagan going on national TV in the evening and telling the American people what his policies (Reaganomics) intended to do — and his charts pointing to the future when economic growth would turn the tide on the deficits?
Boy, do we miss him!
Instead, we have Algore’s alarmist slideshows and John McCain echoing that false message.
A couple of fist-fights does not make a war. Medieval science—that is to say, science—was created by religious doctrine. That doctrine would be Christianity, building on the doctrines of Judaism and the philosophy of certain Greek geniuses such as Aristotle.
Briefly, in contrast to the pagan view that the world is run by capricious gods, the Christian view has always been that the universe is a place obedient to laws written by a loving God, and that truth is absolute and discoverable by man. There's a reason why the fathers of modern science, such as Copernicus (cosmology) and Mendel (genetics), were priests.
I'll read the jump, and trust that the rest of the article is better informed.
You are correct.
Remember Obama admitted that higher capital gains might lead to less revenue, but wanted higher rates anyway for “fairness”.
That's right - his after-tax price of a $1million item is $3million under the income tax.
Like today, when income tax is included in prices, nrst prices are comparable. Most after tax prices go down under the nrst - because MANY who currently do not pay their portion of income tax/payroll tax [illegals, criminals] will begin paying their full share of federal tax via purchases under the nrst.
Why don't fairtaxers stick to legitimate arguments instead of relying on bogus arguments such as this one. As has been explained hundreds of times, the fairtax does nothing to tax criminals. Unless the fairtax compels criminals to remit sales tax on their illegal activities, criminals still avoid the fairtax in nearly the exact mannor as they avoid income taxes. Stick to legitimate points and not the fairytax smoke and mirror ones.
“’just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine’
A couple of fist-fights does not make a war. Medieval science—that is to say, science—was created by religious doctrine. That doctrine would be Christianity, building on the doctrines of Judaism and the philosophy of certain Greek geniuses such as Aristotle.”
No need to be touchy. FYI, the greeks were pagens.
All the progressive kids who have moved back in with their parents because they cannot afford a similar lifestyle, wail:”It’s not fair!”
There are a lot of poor Democrat voters who are expecting fairness in the form of nationalization of the oil companies and subsidized gasoline, too. Not to mention a huge COLA and free food stamps, along with free health insurance, which most of them already have via Medicaid.
I cannot wait to hear them respond to the new regime. Of course, they will continue to vote D. I wonder if they will have to declare taxpayers an Endangered Species?
I am beyond expecting any rationality in this country.
You need to see beyond this AR.
Nobody ever said the FairTax taxes criminal sales. That has never been said. That is a strawman to deflect from the fact that the FairTax does indeed collect more in fed tax from criminals. ANd this strawman doesn’t even attempt to address the illegals issue.
That the FairTax does not tax criminal sales doesn’t even represent a change from today.
But the nrst fully taxes illegals when they consume.
And it fully taxes criminals when they consume.
That criminal drug sales occur without having tax collected is no change from today.
Yes you did when you said "[illegals, criminals] will begin paying their full share of federal tax via purchases under the nrst." Without expanding the base to include illegal activities, the fairtax base just includes the exact same legal market activities as the income tax, and then there is no basis for your argument that prices will somehow magically come down under the fairtax. Under the fairtax, criminals will NOT be paying their full share, as they will still not be remitting any taxes for their illegal activities.
The folks who understand the following paragraph are already acting upon it:
Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled by our richest citizens is especially tax-intolerant.
you don't get it. I'll try one more time.
today, a criminal/illegal only pays embedded taxes in consumption - while the legal pays embedded taxes AND PIT AND EE payroll. Do you see that currently criminals/illegals do not pay their full burden? [they pay no PIT or payroll]. Hence, legals pay a larger share per person... currently criminals and illegals are escaping a portion of their taxes [PIT and payroll].
under the nrst, the criminal does not escape taxes [except on illegal purchases, which obviously aren't taxed - nor are they taxed today] - he pays his effective rate, the same as the legal. That means under the nrst, legals will pay less and criminals/illegals will pay more.
do you see that the nrst will collect a greater portion of taxes from the criminal/illegal under the nrst than it does currently?
please note that is is NOT related in any respect to illegal sales. Illegal sales aren't taxed today and won't be under the nrst - they represent zero change. No change is asserted in illegal sales.
The change is that criminals/illegals currently escape paying taxes on illegal sales AND escape PIT and payroll. Under the nrst, they will still escape tax on illegal sales, but they will pay amounts for PIT and payroll in their consumption.
If you don't like the nrst, fine. But it will collect a greater portion of taxes from illegals/criminals than today compared to legals. That is one thing that allows tax burdens for legals to decline.
Bump for later
Does that graph mean to imply the Top Individual income tax rate in 1955 was 90%?
How much would the change in rules about tax deductions skew this graph I wonder?
Absolutely they cheat the system. I just don't get how you see it as ANY different under the fair tax. There is ZERO difference. There is NO net gain. Let's say Spitzer pays a hooker $5000. Under the income tax, the hooker does not pay SS tax or Income tax. Under the fairtax, the hooker does not remit 23% of that gross payment for her services. Under BOTH systems the hooker keeps over $1000 that rightfully should be sent to the government. NO DIFFERENT, except the semantics which you twist it with.
The top marginal tax rate in 1955 was 91% — down slightly from the 94% it was in the last 2 years of World War II.
It was 70% when Ronald Reagan took over the presidency in 1981. When he left office, it was 28%.
Difficult to figure out what deductions would mean to those old top marginal rates. The 28% achieved in 1988-90 was the result of agreements eliminating many tax-shelters and various other deductions but after Bush Senior gave up on “no new taxes” it was back to the old ways: upping marginal tax rates and bringing back the old deduction dodge. JMHO.
Indeed, I believe you are correct. The easy credit economy has created unstustainable national debt, PERIOD. Foreigners were funding a hefty portion of public debt but have moved on due to the instability of our financial system and into commodities. The government’s remedy to this is taxation without representation in the form of inflation which is the FED, appointed officials NOT elected. Add the $14 trillion debt and the forecasted costs of SS & Medicare for the boomers over the next decade of $18 trillion.
The Democrats proposed way to pay for this is socialism or wealth redistribution through taxation. It is a collective punishment for the responsible. Socialism does work temporarily and Obama would be touted as short-term savior but the cracks of the damn would multiply many fold in a three or four year span and he would not be re-elected.
My solution would be to declare energy independence as a national security priority, subsidizing hundreds of billions into the effort. This would help create millions of permanent jobs which add to the tax base. Also, America could become an exporter of the raw materials which also makes shipping agriculture and metals (things which the global consumer actually needs) less expensive. It would create a massive global investment opportunity, particularly if it was backed by Treasury and this would fix a good portion of the financial sector. It would deflate the commodities bubble. This would create trillions of dollars of new wealth over time. The citizens of this nation are seeing a declining quality of life. I do not see a way to minimize this in the short term and feel we will go over the cliff and be 10 feet from earth before we open this parachute.
“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence ...”(Atlas Shrugged.Ayn Rand.)
You hit it dead on. See what the big money guys like Warren Buffet are getting into and that is investing overseas. America will get it right on the economy but not without pain which spurs necessity which spurs definitive actions. I don’t want or cheer pain, I prefer research and action in advance to solve problems (that’s the businessman in me).
Why yes, of COURSE this would be solidly comprehended by the airhead brainless oprah-worshipping soccer moms in my neighborhood:
"The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious."
I can just imagine the glazed look in their eyes. Apologies for the sarcasm, but many in redzones don't realize how bad it's gotten. Ever notice how dumbed down TV commercials have gotten? There's a reason.
“We do not want you to obey the law! We want you to break the law... and then we can decide whom to throw into jail!” (loosely recalled from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand... this is a quote I remember from Wesley Mouch to Hank Reardon. Mouch was the Government Bureaucrat responsible for promoting the “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog” bill... it’s been many years, so no guarantee on this quote/reference!).
Hahah, was wondering the same thing! There is a flaw in the model here or WSJ is somehow misintepreting what the research means.
The Liberal/Marxists see all wealth and property as being owned by the government. It is the government that “allows” citizens to keep some of the government's money and property.
Scratch a liberal and under his thin skin is a hard core socialist. Dig a little deeper and you will soon find the Marxist's nuclear fuel rod that drives everything he says and does.
Corollary: All Liberal/Marxists lie.
Always Right,
Do you directly or indirectly make a living because we have our existing income tax? ( Just wondering.)
The Fair Tax would put a lot of government employees and tax accountant out of work.
That's fine. I'm not saying otherwise.
I'm saying the portion of total taxes coming from criminals and illegals will be more under the nrst than the portion currently collected under the income tax.
If currently legals represent 80% of population but pay 98% of taxes, under the nrst - for example - legals will represent 80% of the population but pay 80% of taxes.
The total paid by illegals will increase and the total paid by legals will decline.
I'm serious. It is the uber-wealthy who want to drive down the middle and upper class by taxing income, a tax they don't even feel. As soon as someone gets really rich, he starts wanting to make the middle class poor. Look at Soros, Bill Gates--they become "progressive" to gain status among their billionaire peerage.
It would appeal to my class resentment. I resent the heck out of meddling, condescending billionaires--and preachy nitwit Hollywood bigshots. Tax their wealth, since they don't really value it anyway.
Nope, but that is the typical response of fairtaxers to people who point out the bogus arguments of the fairtax. You sound like a member of the fairtax church.
The Fair Tax would put a lot of government employees and tax accountant out of work.
Why? Do you not think businesses won't still need to keep their books? Do you not think there won't be a gazillion government employees needed to collect this tax? It is simpler, but it also opens the door to a lot more non-compliance which will require a lot of government snooping to collect the revenue that it needs to be collected. One just needs to look at how state governments collect the high cigarette taxes. They subpoena company's records, get credit card information, and then goes after individuals. There is nothing in the fairtax code that stops the government from hassling individuals, who BTW are ultimately liable for the fairtax according to the bill.
Criminals are avoiding remitting 23% of their gross under the fairtax. I don't see that as any different. Are criminals avoiding 23% of their gross under the income tax? I seriously doubt it. I think it would be pretty close to a wash.
It changes because now criminals don't pay PIT or payroll like they will under the nrst.
That's one of the reasons today's legal participants in the income tax system will see a boost in purchasing power - they no longer have to pay as much to carry the criminals and illegals.
You could think of one’s tax burden as three parts;
-embedded taxes
-PIT
-Payroll
Criminals/illegals only pay one of these - embedded tax. Legals, however, pay all three parts.
Under the nrst, one’s tax burden is only one part;
-tax on consumption.
Criminals/illegals will pay this tax, just like legals.
....
Under the nrst, criminals/illegals will pay a greater portion of the total collected [and legals will pay less].
-embedded taxes
-PIT
-Payroll
Only if you don't realize 'embedded taxes' already includes PIT and Payroll taxes. Do you ever wonder why the fairytax.org analysis is always so rosy? Because for the income tax it counts taxes twice. You can either count taxes being paid by the individuals and businesses that submit them, or you can count them as embedded. When you try to count them twice, you void any logical discussion and enter fairytax.org land.
-embedded taxes
-PIT
-Payroll
Only if you don't realize 'embedded taxes' already includes PIT and Payroll taxes. Do you ever wonder why the fairytax.org analysis is always so rosy? Because for the income tax it counts taxes twice. You can either count taxes being paid by the individuals and businesses that submit them, or you can count them as embedded. When you try to count them twice, you void any logical discussion and enter fairytax.org land.
I was just out for awhile and was speaking with someone, a Republican, who was upset and worried about people who are both working and are finding it difficult to buy groceries and gas. I asked who they were voting for and she answered that they blame the Republicans for this economy and are voting donk.
My response was:tough love. I think this country needs to feel the pain in a personal way before they will take the time to understand economics and to appreciate capitalism. We are older and still capable of doing a lot of work that many folks hire out. I have posted often over the past few months on the old ways of squeezing a dime, saving a dollar and surviving what is upon us. I know there are many FReepers who are doing the same. Some of us have savings and assets and some of us don’t. But we aren’t the problem and we aren’t the ones voting for fascism.
I hope to God we can pull the rip cord at 10 feet above ground. I fear we may have to crash and burn and then survive the indignities of full blown fascism, with all the attendent blame pointed our way, if we are keeping our heads above water, even if just barely.
I have realtives who are affluent and who spent the good decades railing on and on about the Republicans. Most of them are going to scream blue murder when their retirement accounts are taxed, their income is taken into account when computing their property taxes (being proposed in MN) and the ones in the health professions find their livlihood nationalized and themselves conscripted for the Good Of The State. Their children are no better, but they, at least, are still young adults and could possibly wake up in time to vote against what is going to be a real horror.
Everyone needs to make sure they have heat, food and enough savings to keep up their insurance policies over the next several years. Bailouts will be for the improvident, not for the responsible, IMO. People with a lot of assets need to figure out how to keep them from the tax man, because the need for scapegoats and revenue sources is going to be intense.
Your plan is rational and therefore it will not be implemented with these idiots in power and with their inculcated supporters cheering them everytime they propose a public hanging of some imagined culprit.
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.