Why The Fair Tax WILL Work, A response to Bartlett's Unfair Attack on the FairTax

In his December 24, 2007 Tax Notes article, “Why the Fair Tax Won’t Work,” Bruce Bartlett purports to critique the FairTax, a proposal to replace almost all federal taxes with a retail sales tax plus a rebate. In fact, Barlett’s article has little to say about the FairTax and even less to say that’s accurate. Instead, most of his article misstates research on the FairTax, criticizes unnamed proponents of the FairTax, lambasts unattributed views of the FairTax, and engages in political punditry. This paper takes a close look at Bartlett’s “analysis,” exposing his repeated use of straw men for what it is rhetoric disguised as economics. (1)

Bartlett begins his critique by accosting unnamed messengers (referenced by “FairTax advocates”) for supposedly suggesting that consumer, producer, and factor prices would be unaffected by the FairTax, with workers simply keeping the income and payroll taxes that would otherwise have been deducted from their paychecks.

Clearly, such an outcome is inconsistent with elementary economics, and no serious student of the FairTax would assert such an outcome. Nonetheless, Bartlett’s devotes, by my count, some 31 paragraphs, including a primer on the Great Depression, to demolishing this straw man. (2)

Bartlett’s second concern lies in the calculation of the FairTax rebate. He takes issue with the proposal’s treatment of childless households, suggesting that the size of their rebates are too large. From this Bartlett surmises that Congress would raise the rebates to households with children thereby “greatly increasing the cost of the rebate.” But if the rebates to childless households are too large, the solution is not to make everyone’s rebate too large, but rather to cut rebates to childless households and, thereby, reduce required FairTax revenue.

Bartlett’s next “critique” is even less memorable. He claims that Americans won’t perceive their monthly FairTax rebate check as progressive even though the rebates will be a much higher percentage of the resources of the poor than they will be of the rich. Instead, he says, households will view the FairTax as proportional because everyone will have to pay the same FairTax rate when they spend their money, no matter the source of their money. This is no different from claiming that people judge tax fairness based on their marginal rather than their average tax rates. Were this the case, marginal tax rates under our current tax system would presumably be set to rise monotonically with income, which is certainly not the case. (4)

Bartlett’s contention here is symptomatic of a pervasive failure to stick to economics. Bartlett’s expertise does not, to my knowledge, extend to psychology or political science. So when he asks his readers to accept his assessment of perceptions or his judgment of political reactions, I, for one, start feeling queasy.

Bartlett’s first significant economic critique of the FairTax appears five pages into his article, where he states “… there would be an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.” (page 1245) As proof of this proposition he reproduces a table (his table 5, p. 1245) generated by the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis entitled “Distribution of the Federal Tax Burden Under the FairTax.”

Notwithstanding its source, there are two major problems with the Treasury’s analysis of the FairTax’s progressivity. First, the Treasury produced this table in response to a request from President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. The Tax Reform Panel was charged with considering reform of the personal and corporate income taxes. Its purview did not extend to reforming the payroll tax. As a consequence, although the Treasury referenced the FairTax in the table, the Treasury completely ignores one of the most progressive elements of the FairTax, namely the elimination of the highly regressive FICA tax. Bartlett mentions that the table considers replacing only the income tax. But he fails to mention that were the table to include replacing the payroll tax, the FairTax would look much more progressive....

THIS IS AN EXCERPT. The Full paper is available at: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9321

Sorry. No sale. Economic models suck at best. If you laid all of the economists in the world end to end they could not reach a conclusion.

Mostly service workers will be thrown out of work. The one size fits all will not work in particular in the food industry. The prebate is regressive to low end earners and they will be the hardest hit. Also, let's pretend like there is double digit growth - can you inflation? ( not that I believe it).

Do you honestly believe that a family with four teenage boys and a family with four teenage girls who live across the street from each other will be "Fair"ly treated with prebates? Oh and no way food goes down you FT'ers magic 23%. Not going to happen.

You have yet to respond to my legitimate points about how easily it could be turned into a VAT.

There is nothing in the legislation, HR 25 that would trigger a VAT. It would be difficult to institute a VAT without doing it very under the table. What a ridiculous idea. There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent congress from increasing the FT rate to 100%. How am I, or anyone else, supposed to answer an outlandish assumption?

I’ve just grown tired of playing the game. Let me know when you wish to lay down a counter-argument worth the effort of responding to that is directly responsive as to HOW a liberal majority in congress and a liberal president in the White House will not expand the Fair tax into a VAT.

I can't and you know it. How can I or you lay down a counter argument to the theory that a liberal congress can triple our income taxes under current law? That would make the current law just as dangerous as any replacement, or more so.

Either way, I’m tired of Fair Tax zealots ignoring the reality I have laid out

That's because you haven't laid out anything remotely close to reality. You could just as easily say that the FT does nothing to stop terrorism.

Furthermore, I have not even approached the subject of how your fantasy law will double-tax life time savers.

If there is a flaw in the legislation I am the first to admit that could be it. So there are numerous ways to make that aspect more fair. There will be a lot more IRA type money that will be untaxed and some of that pool can be taxed temporarily to offset the taxable savings. Either way we are worried about taxing the wealth of retired folks who are currently living off of the sweat of younger ones.

come back at me with legitimate discussion of my direct comments on this thread,

The first of your posts that I responded to is the only one that concerns me. I don't care what you posted before and I'm certainly not going to backtrack and read it.

Do you believe the income tax and the IRS should be maintained as they currently exist?

If your estate is large enough that inheritance taxes are a worry, then perhaps you should do some estate planning.

Once again you make my argument for me. Estate planning involves a lot of expensive lawyers, accountants and life insurance. It can only follow that you must have a hand in one of those cookie jars.

As Zell Miller once said: "How can Americans do estate planning when they don't even know what the inheritance tax will be in five years?"

Once again you make my argument for me. Estate planning involves a lot of expensive lawyers, accountants and life insurance.

Having just been through the process, I found the attorney fees to be very reasonable.

It can only follow that you must have a hand in one of those cookie jars.

Nope, in that area I am strictly a consumer wise enough to know when I can benefit from competent, professional advice.

"How can Americans do estate planning when they don't even know what the inheritance tax will be in five years?"

Wouldn't the same apply to stocks and bonds? Do you know where the market will be in 5 years?

Inheritance tax certainly isn't the only expense or issue addressed in estate planing. In fact, inheritance tax isn't an issue for most people.

Having just been through the process, I found the attorney fees to be very reasonable.

Having been through the process numerous times with numerous clients I know that the process is VERY expensive. There aren't too many ways to do it and all of them either require setting up expensive trusts, partnerships or buying very expensive life insurance late in life. Unless you give it all away before you die. There is NOTHING more expensive than that.

My question for you is, why do we even have to answer to the tax man for a lifetime of work? Why do we have to give that money to the government instead of our children and grandchildren? You and I both know the answer to that: generational wealth is a curse to socialism.

Wouldn't the same apply to stocks and bonds? Do you know where the market will be in 5 years?

That is something we have no control over. We have control over our own government. At least we used to before the income tax and the New Deal.

Inheritance tax certainly isn't the only expense or issue addressed in estate planing. In fact, inheritance tax isn't an issue for most people.

Neither is income tax, that's why I want the FairTax.

Having been through the process numerous times with numerous clients I know that the process is VERY expensive.

I guess "very expensive" means different things to different people.

In the first place, we don't have to give our money to the government when we kick the bucket. Most people don't leave estates large enough to be subject to the inheritance tax, and for those who do, there are legal ways around it. Its just not an issue I can get very excited about one way or another.

Neither is income tax, that's why I want the FairTax.

Then eliminating the inheritance tax would solve your problem without disrupting the economy.

Getting rid of the death tax would make me very happy. It doesn't concern you that wealthy people have to pay the government for a lifetime of work?

What if it's an illiquid business that they want to leave to heirs? The heirs can't sell it and are stuck with taxes based on the IRS's interpretation of the value. What if it is land that has been in the family for generations? It's okay with you that heirs have to sell their birthright to satisfy the government?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Maybe you're not concerned about the inheritance tax because it doesn't affect you. It does, however, affect a lot of good people and it shouldn't.

It doesn't concern you that wealthy people have to pay the government for a lifetime of work?

First, the lifetime of work was mine, not my heirs. What ever they get is gravey.

Second, if I want to cut the government out of a share of my estate, there are legal ways to do it.

Third, under the FairTax, when my heirs go shopping with the money I've left for them, the government gets 30%. Unless, of course, they buy used and live like paupers, which would not be my purpose in leaving them money.

What if it's an illiquid business that they want to leave to heirs? The heirs can't sell it and are stuck with taxes based on the IRS's interpretation of the value.

That's not strictly true.

What if it is land that has been in the family for generations? It's okay with you that heirs have to sell their birthright to satisfy the government?

There is no need to sell the land to pay the government if appropriate estate planning has been done (my responsibility) and you well know it.

Maybe you're not concerned about the inheritance tax because it doesn't affect you. It does, however, affect a lot of good people and it shouldn't.

Then eliminate the estate tax without trashing the economy.

Second, if I want to cut the government out of a share of my estate, there are legal ways to do it.

Sure. I think I've outed another SQL. You sell life insurance don't you?

Unless the deceased have bought plenty of life insurance from you. Or are you saying the government should have it before they spend it?

That's not strictly true.

It certainly is.

There is no need to sell the land to pay the government if appropriate estate planning has been done (my responsibility) and you well know it.

And tons of life insurance premium is paid to the company you represent.

You do realize your whole post is an advertisement for second to die life insurance, don't you?

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.