Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
For quite some time now there has been an organization pushing for a National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) to replace the current income tax in the US of A. The proponents thereof call it a "fair tax", and even have a web site www.fairtax.org. These folks claim that the current income tax structure is a crumbling mess, and that the NRST, a "voluntary" tax is the most equitable solution. For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly upon the first premise, but disagree vehemently on the second.
The NRST would be no more voluntary that the current system. What are you gonna do? Buy something and tell the cashier not to add the federal tax? Or not buy anything? (multiply that by every taxpayer and imagine the effect on the economy). And if you believe the proponents claim that they can put enough safeguards in place to make their system painless and equitable, then I have a bridge in New York that you can buy cheap.
The NRST would, by definition be a highly regressive system that would hurt the middle class far more than the wealthy, and if it ain't complicated enough in the planning stage, just wait a few years. Tax accountants wouldn't' be in any real jeopardy under the NRST, they would just have to learn a few new rules. Since the nature of any government program is to increase in complexity, watch for tax changes to increase this or decrease that, then try to factor in the cost of compliance with all this going on - guess who's gonna pay?
The premise that spending is a taxable activity is silly on the face of it. I remember my ex-wife complaining after I spent my last dime on a badly needed item "If you have $50 for that, then I can spend $50 on what I want". The proponents seem to believe that if I have 500 to spend on a badly needed washing machine, that I can also pony up another 40% or so for their agenda. This is ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of the voting public. Just because I have 500 dollars, doesn't mean that I have 700. Just like my ex refused to believe that if I had 50 dollars for one item that I couldn't magically conjure up another 50 dollars for her. Fifty dollars is fifty dollars. It isn't an indication, hint, or promise that there's a matching fifty dollars lying around for everybody else's ideal. And under the NRST proposal, if I don't have the 700, then I can't buy the 500 washing machine. So since I don't have the 700 bucks, I don't buy the appliance. The seller doesn't make the sale, the manufacturer doesn't' get to make another one to replace it on the shelf, the deliverer doesn't get to deliver it. Everybody loses.
But wait! The NRST proponents cheerfully remind me that "large purchases" such as major appliances and automobiles would be exempt from the NRST. Ah! The first major complication. What is and what is not covered. So maybe a set of dishes would be covered. Would we care to look into what this little statement would mean? In a very few years we will inevitably see merchandise gerrymandering as to what would be taxable and what wouldn't. And someone would have to keep track of all this. I remember in Connecticut where a 75-cent milkshake was taxed six cents for a nickel's worth of malt, but the same sized milk was untaxed. Food was taxed but only if it cost one dollar or more. Clothing was taxed unless it was for a child under ten years of age. One customer buying a jacket had to pay the tax, but another didn't have to because of the age of the child. Can you keep track of this? Multiply this by the political agendas of congresscritters all over the country,. And you can see what I mean by merchandise gerrymandering.
Quite simply, it would mean that the increasing tax burden would be spread to more items of lesser value, therefore having a greater impact upon the final purchase price. So the government would have to get more from less. So the "Fair tax" might end up making that $40 set of dishes cost $80 or more. So what would be the result? Fewer people buy dishes. People who make and sell dishes would do less business, and therefore they would be hurt. The customer would be hurt by the loss of the use of the new dishes, the whole economy would take such a hit that it would take years, if not decades to recover. Discretionary purchasing could evaporate overnight.
Would there be exemptions for lower income people so that each person pays a tax burden more in line with their ability to pay? Would certain people be able to carry a tax avoidance card to not have to pay taxes due to their economic status? How would you protect the poor - who also need to buy things like dishes every now and again?
Let's look at this another way. Perhaps a person like me must spend 80 to 90 percent of their income on living expenses. Much of that would be subject to the NRST. So more of my money, as a percentage of income, would be taxed. Now let us look at someone like Bill Gates, or Ted Kennedy. Since they have vast incomes compared to me, they can afford to shelter more of their income into other areas. If the NRST is the major tax vehicle, then they would only be taxed upon the much smaller percentage of their incomes that they spend on living expenses. Because they can afford to sock away lots more money than I do, that money would not be taxed as it isn't "spent"! Yes, I know that Gates and Kennedy spend more than I do, but as a percentage of their total income, it is less. So the NRST favors the rich at the expense of the middle class!
But the NRST folks won't tell you that. In fact, they'll flatly deny it hoping that you don't notice the vast amounts of income that the very rich sock away into investments, etc. that wouldn't be taxed (unless they want yet another complication in their system), and focus our attention upon their SUV's. The net gain for the rich would have to be made up for by the rest of us - resulting in a higher tax rate for the middle class and for the poor. The poor subsidizing the rich - reverse Robin Hood!
Let's go back now to the concept that people spend a predictable portion of their income. Every person has basic needs - food, housing, clothing, etc. that must be met. These needs are similar for everyone across the income spectrum. To the extent that these items will be subject to the NRST, everybody pays the same flat fee. If your income is above the minimum, then you can spend a little more, which would be taxable, and perhaps sock a little away. That would not be taxable, apparently, so you gain an incentive not to spend, not to buy. That amounts to putting a damper on the economy in the area of discretional spending. Maybe I don't need those new dishes after all. Multiplied by the number of people who would be affected by the NRST, you have a serious downturn in the economy, resulting in loss of jobs, wages, resulting in severe economic hardships for just about all of the middle class. Of course, the rich wouldn't be affected as much.
So let's look again. The more you make, the less a percentage of your income you need to meet your basic needs. That means that you don't have to spend so much of your money to live. You can shelter more from the government, an option not available to the lower income brackets who often lead hand-to-mouth existences. They'd be the ones hit the hardest. This is the definition of regressive taxation. The social consequences are considerable, and beyond what I am prepared to discuss at this point, but there are historical precedents that are not good.
But wouldn't you benefit from an immediate pay raise by the amount you would normally pay in income taxes? Certainly, and I would welcome that. However, since the entire tax burden on the whole country would remain constant (which means ever-increasing), and since the rich would be paying less overall taxes (the richest 5% pay 85% of income taxes, or something like that), that loss of governmental income would have to be made up by people like me, so logically, there cannot be anything but a net loss for me - I'd end up subsidizing the likes of Kennedy and Gates!
And let us not forget that complication in that some things would be taxed while others would not be taxed. This would be a boon to the politicians - in that they can reap huge amounts of revenue simply by adding an item to the "Taxable" column, it would have a huge negative impact upon those who would be doing the collecting. Oh yeah - remember those? That burden would fall upon business owners and establishments that sell taxable items to the public. The reasoning of the NRST crowd seems to be that if they can collect income taxes for the state, they can collect for the feds. No prob. What they overlook is the increased cost to these businesses, many of them barely breaking even, to collect the deferral taxes. Not only must they follow the whims of state politicians, but they would have to attune themselves to the federal politicians as well! They'd have to absorb the costs of the paperwork required, increased bookkeeping, reprogramming computers, etc.. But you and I know full well that these costs would have to be passed on to us customers. So again, we will pay more for less. OR at least the middle class will. And presumably the poor - unless the poor become exempt, in which a whole new level of beauracracy would be needed - and we know who will have to pay those costs!
Let me give you an example. Support toothpaste isn't taxable. Then some politician figures out that the taxes on a three dollar tube of toothpaste can pay for the next congressional pay raise. It's only a buck or so, so the average guy won't get too upset, but that dollar turns into more than one dollar when you factor in the costs of reprogramming grocery store computers all over the country to reflect that this item is now taxable. So the price increase is closer to a buck fifty. Then some other politician wants to be reelected, so he proposes eliminating the tax on laundry detergent. Here we go again. That one - dollar price decrease translates into a mere 50 cents by the time compliance expense is factored in.
And nowhere would there be any addressing the real problem of federal taxation - the spending glut. The feds are simply spending too much money. The more they get, the more they spend, the government simply cannot exercise any fiscal restraint. The federal government has never had a revenue problem they've always had a spending problem. They spend too much. Where would be the incentive for them to spend less if we give them new pockets to pick?
The solution to the tax problem isn't a misnomer - a "fair tax" in name only, it will have to be a system in which everybody bears a share of the burden commensurate to their ability to pay, not their need to spend. It has been said that if everybody had to pay a fair share of the total tax burden, that people would demand reduced federal spending. THAT is the solution to the problem. Or at least, create a viable environment for the kind of fiscal triage that has been sore lacking in all levels of government.
First of all, I would propose to classify all monies coming into an individual as income. Investments, capital gains, interest, wages, compensation - anything coming IN will be classified as income. All incoming monies are income, all income is treated the same. That income would be taxed at a flat percentage, and that percentage would be the same for everybody. If Ted Kennedy pays the same percentage of income that I do, he still pays a lot more, whether he spends more than I do or not. If someone who makes less than I do has to pay the same percentage, they pay less, more fitting to their abilities.
Nothing would affect people's ability to buy dishes, cars, or anything else because purchasing would be relatively independent of taxation. If you don't' tax it, you don't stand in the way of people who want it. You don't collapse the whole economy for the sake of a political agenda. Purchasing would be minimally affected.
If people don't want to pay their fair share (I would even tax welfare because everybody should be stakeholders), then they can get after their representatives to cut spending. I predict a huge groundswell, and things like beekeeper subsidies and research in to the sex lives of insects would be subject to a lot more scrutiny, and spending would go down. That solves the problem.
The "fair tax" is highly unfair. It hurts far more than the middle class. It only helps the rich - those with the highest proportion of discretionary income. The NRST cannot help but hurt the working classes, the welfare classes, small businesses, and the national economy. The proponents of the NRST dangle the tax deductions in your paycheck like a carrot before your eyes, so that you don't see the huge stick that you're gonna get whacked with if this goes through. I predict that if the NRST gets passed, that within two years there will be a depression that would be far worse and longer lasting than the "Great depression" of the 20's.
Oh! And finally - they claim that they will get rid of the IRS. Really? Who's gonna police the collectors to make sure they collect the right taxes from the right goods?
Can you say "we're being hoodwinked?"
Thanks for the post. Revenue neutral means revenue still has to come from somewhere. In theory, AFT says the revenue will come from sales taxes on items who's gross prices will decline due to the disappearance of imbedded taxes. I think we are beginning to see that the only possible source of this is corporate taxes and I think we can debate who actually pays those taxes. I'm going back through the AFT website.
How about the matching contributions made by our employers, yet not reflected anywhere on a paycheck. Add to that the reduction in compliance cost throughout an entire supply chain and intuitively a reduction would occur in the cost to produce a product or provide a service.You assume the employer's portion of payroll taxes has caused prices to go up by an equal amount, you can't make that assumption (see post #1133). But even if they were, you are only talking about ~$300 billion, which is a very small percentage of retail prices.
Except that one is clearly visible to every citizen and the other is hidden.You are mistaken. A credit-invoice VAT is not hidden. It would appear to a customer just like a NRST, the pretax price and the tax collected would be the same. Only the collection method is different.
VAT
Payment
Credit
(Tax - Credit)Raw Materials Manufacturer Wholesaler Distributor Retailer
Not necessarily. There are many types of VAT implementations, and the one YN seems to favor would be just as visible as a NRST. If we were to do a VAT, I would prefer the credit invoice type YN favors. However, I think the FairTax is cheaper in terms of compliance and enforcement, and less intrusive, and does, at least a little bit, move power out of DC and puts it into the state and the people.
What your post describes is actually a reduction in costs of the goods. If the cost is reduced, then either the profit margin is increased or the price is decreased (profit remains constant). Generally, in free, competitive markets the price will fall to gain market share. I can imagine some monopolistic industries where the prices would not fall, but most business is subject to competition that will force prices down.
"It would appear to a customer just like a NRST,"
Please definie "customer". Are you actually stating that the average citizen will see the portion of the price that accounted for the taxation? I'm doubtful that will occur.
OK, I took another look at your table and it is a bit clearer to me now. As you present the scenario in that table, what is the difference between the VAT you support and the NRST? The only difference I see is the added comlexity in your VAT. The retail customer still pays the cost of the tax.
Why do you support adding complexity?
"That would be the result. We can tax imports and get the same result without an NRST.
Either way the consumer loses, but you get your result."
Except by only adding a tarrif, you are talking about additional taxes vs. the NRST which is revenue nuetral. Under the current system the taxes are hidden, under the NRST the taxes are in plain view and the base is larger.
The disparity between the cost of a product from China, India, or any LCC (Low Cost Country) is driven by all the elements you site, however the portion of the disparity attributable to labor is very small and often offset by logistics costs, many times the dunnage alone offsets the labor cost. The regulation (includes taxation) is the largest and by addressing this the US good could become total cost competitive very quickly.
Actually the question is how can that reduction in the costs of goods be caused by elimination of income taxes? I'm beginning to believe that prices will not fall much when embedded income taxes are removed from the pipeline of goods and services.
Which leaves me reading tea leaves again. If prices don't fall the immediate effect will be a 30% increase in prices of every thing except used goods. First year there will be a huge tendency to buy used goods over and above the first 15-20 thousand of the pre-bate. A sudden sharp decrease in consumer spending could be temporarily disastrous. Also, it would create a huge deficit at treasury. Of course, all of this can be dealt with by phase in or other means.
I still think the long term benefits of a NRST outweigh the negatives.
Thanks. Most people want the cliff-notes version of what happens to taxes paid at the entity level. VERY FEW PEOPLE have the inclination to fully understand the "shifting sands" of incidence. And what is true today with respect to the ultimate incidence of a tax is NOT NECESSARILY true tomorrow.
Analogizing to shifting sands is therefore appropriate and helpful to most.
The ball to watch here is the TOTAL purchasing power of individuals and their ability to obtain the same basket of goods that they are able to obtain today.
"...I think we are beginning to see that the only possible source of this is corporate taxes and I think we can debate who actually pays those taxes...."
I think that is an accurate statement of the issue. I find the explanations from the Institute for the Research of the Economics of Taxation (www.iret.org ) to be quite helpful.
When the FairTax was written, I think it was probably accurate to say that the full value of corporate taxation is passed on to consumers. With the "Wal-Mart" effect keeping a lid on prices everywhere, the ultimate incidence of the corporate tax may be falling on the working stiff, which I believe is the conclusion reached by Steven Entin of IRET.
In any event, wherever the ultimate incidence falls, we'll be infinately better off once Title 26 is repealed and the FairTax is enacted.
My best to all....Goddess (allow me my fantasy!)
"...I'm beginning to believe that prices will not fall much when embedded income taxes are removed from the pipeline of goods and services...."
That is probably correct, HOWEVER, once the cost of entity level taxation is removed, THE BENEFIT MUST ACCRUE TO SOMEONE....inversely to the group that now bears the true or ultimate incidence of the corporate tax.
Again, the ball to watch here is TOTAL PURCHASING POWER.
If prices drop a little, wages increase a little and your investments perform a bit better, you'll likely be able to purchase the same basket of goods based on the combined effect of the changes. Whereas that is a more accurate statement of the net effect, MOST, in fact very few will probably take the time or have the inclination to understand how the incidence of taxation is really allocated. I'm not so sure that it is worth spending the time to explain at this level of detail. The diehards still posting to this thread are up to the challenge.
You really have 3 areas that are eliminated.
1) Personal withholding (matched by employer)
2) Corporate compliance cost
3) Corporate income tax
By eliminating the withholding, your take home pay increases. By eliminating employer matching either your pay increases or the employer's cost decreases. By eliminating compliance costs, the cost decreases. By eliminating corporate income tax, cost decreases.
I suspect you might have forgotten the 3rd element. Either way, the decrease in cost can either be used to increase profits or to decrease price. Given a free, competitive market, the price will fall.
The actual percentage of cost reduction can be debated and has been debated. However, it is clear that a cost reduction will occur.
Remove government taxes. Remove regulations. Institute tort reform. Encourage non-union shops.
Do it right.
OK, I took another look at your table and it is a bit clearer to me now. As you present the scenario in that table, what is the difference between the VAT you support and the NRST? The only difference I see is the added comlexity in your VAT. The retail customer still pays the cost of the tax.The added complexity is not as much as many think. We are talking about basic cash flow accounting that any business would do in it's normal course of business. In the end it's a simple as:
VAT invoiced - VAT credits = VAT remittedIt removes the most complex accounting elements of the current system; like depreciation and foreign-sourced income. Both of these are extremely complex and are not part of the normal accounting of a business, thus the compliance costs.
"To me, removing a tax from U.S. made products and applying it to imports is not my idea of the best way to level the playing field. I think it hurts consumers to benefit local manufacturing."
I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. As the situation exists today, the tax burden is placed on US companies, not on foriegn companies. What this proposal would do is equally burden the products or services by both the US company and the foriegn company, therefore removing artificial efficiencies.
I think that's going to be offset by the taxes you will be paying where you never paid them before. Services, for example. Your lawyer, accountant, plumber, barber, the kid who cuts your lawn, and, the biggie, healthcare.
I predict that very soon after the NRST is implementd, we'll switch to a cashless society. We'll have to. The fraud in the service industry will be outrageous. Also, bartering will make a comeback with that 30% incentive (Fix my sink and I'll write your Will for you -- Uncle Sam loses twice).
And the NRST will, of couse, have to increase to compensate.
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.