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?"
I was thinking the same thing.
Especially after my brilliant cinematography at the most recent New York FreeRepublic Ball.
[sarcasm intentional]
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Thanks.
Yes.
Hey, I never know anything.
*chuckle*
I know the least among all of FReepdom!
No, not clever, that idea is idiotic. $23.00 is a 23% tax on the selling price of 100 dollars. If the merchant charges $129.87, he is charging a 29.87% sales tax on a $100 sale.
jones
No, what you need to provide is any sort of resource that says that evasion will be higher under the sales tax than under the income tax.No, because the income tax base and rates already have the evasion factored into them. The point is not that there would be more or less evasion/avoidance under the FairTax than the income tax, it's that there would be an increase in evasion/avoidance compared to the current state sales taxes and other goods and services in the FairTax base. It's this increase in sales tax evasion/avoidance that was not accounted for when the rate was calculated. Increase the sales tax rate from 6% to 36% and the sales tax base will definitely shrink due to evasion/avoidance.
When Kitty Carlisle gets through with her stupid question, it's my turn.
No, not clever, that idea is idiotic. $23.00 is a 23% tax on the selling price of 100 dollars. If the merchant charges $129.87, he is charging a 29.87% sales tax on a $100 sale.
jones
Why would you make such a ridiculous assumption? If the demand goes up now, producers strive to increase supply to meet that demand. Why would that change?
Why do you want to see the current system continue? What is your stake in it? Is your narrow self interest so overwhelming that you'd stand in the way of such a positive change for good, for liberty, for prosperity?
What makes you tick?
Wrong. The proposed Fair Tax is simply treated as another sales tax, added to the subtotal of items purchased.Sorry, jonestown, but you most certainly mistaken. I was confused by this intially, too.
I know the FairTax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter? 30 percent. This issue is often confusing, so we explain more here.
When income tax rates are quoted, economists call that a tax-inclusive quote: “I paid 23 percent last year.” If that were the case, for $100 one earned, $23 went to Uncle Sam. Or, “I had to make $130 to have $100 to spend.” That’s a 23-percent tax-inclusive rate.
We choose to compare the FairTax to income taxes, quoting the rate the same way, because the FairTax replaces such taxes. That rate is 23 percent.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are generally quoted tax-exclusive: “I bought a $77 shirt and had to pay that same $23 in sales tax. This is a 30-percent sales tax.” Or, “I spent a dollar, 77¢ for the product and 23¢ in tax.” This rate, when programmed into a point-of-purchase terminal, is 30 percent.
Note that no matter which way it is quoted, the amount of tax is the same. Under an income tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $130 to spend $100.
Spend that same $100 under a sales tax, you pay that same $30, and the rate is quoted as 30 percent.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is under the income tax, controlling the amount of tax you pay is a complex nightmare. Under the FairTax, you may simply choose not to spend, or to spend less.
You hold the prestigious position of "Keeper of the FreeRepublic Troll Rolls."
>> Please explain why anything would be costing 35% more. That makes no sense at all.<<
Tax.
Look at the whole picture:
Presently, the cost of imbedded taxes raises prices 20 to 25%.
Presently, the feds take 20 to 30% of your INCOME.
The FairTax will only be 30% of what you SPEND and prices will be lower because that imbedded taxation cost is GONE.
You will have a lot more to spend. Spending will not go down.
You are being illogical or dishonest to say otherwise.
LOL!
Okers.
>> It could revolutionize every economic model we have.<<
I think it would. BTW, one of the strong arguments (and I mean REALLY strong) for home ownership is the deductibility of your interest and real estate taxes. Several industries have grown up around it.
With no income tax and only sales tax, say buh-bye to all of them to one degree or another. There will also be less incentive to own your own home so I suspect being a landlord will be more profitable. Except say goodbye to all those tax incentives for owners.
The playing field in one of the most dollar-laden industries in the country will suddenly switch into a parallel dimension. New rules, new game. Kind of reminds me of rollerball...
*eep!*
LOL
Gabz stubborn?
Nah.
Just firmly rooted in her beliefs and willing to agressively defend them.
But not stubborn.
>>Look at the whole picture:
Presently, the cost of imbedded taxes raises prices 20 to 25%.
Presently, the feds take 20 to 30% of your INCOME.
The FairTax will only be 30% of what you SPEND and prices will be lower because that imbedded taxation cost is GONE.
You will have a lot more to spend. Spending will not go down.
You are being illogical or dishonest to say otherwise.<<
Look at the whole picture. You have only touched on a piece of it. Keep in mind, the government will need the same money it always needed, except they will get it in a different way. Do not think your tax will go down. Look at what you pay in federal taxes, along with what the companies that produce and market pay in federal taxes (hidden in the prices). It will all be exposed now as a separate, naked, sales tax.
I think I am being conservative at 35%.
I can make a much better case that the prices would stay the same than you can make for prices dropping.
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.