Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FairTax.Org HR25
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG ^ | Last Week | Thomas Leser

Posted on 02/13/2005 10:41:05 AM PST by nsmart

The FairTax is the non-partisan national sales tax proposal that would replace all federal income taxes. These include personal, estate, gift, self-employment, alternative minimum, capital gains, FICA, and corporate and death taxes.

(Excerpt) Read more at WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: consumptiontax; endincometax; fairtax; fairtaxorg; hr25; incometaxes; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-651 next last
To: JoeGar
And this is considered "fair"?

The less one buys the less one pays. If the rich want to buy less, or discover ways, i.e. (buy used) to avoid the tax, they also can pay less.
121 posted on 02/13/2005 4:58:48 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

I attended a Farm Bureau meeting, too, representing the FairTax. Of course, in Nebraska, they are contemplating closing our 'Fair grounds' so we had some confusion at first.. LOL.. but yes, I'm on the list and work with a man named Collette.


122 posted on 02/13/2005 5:00:33 PM PST by nsmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer

And a rich man who buys less or buy used .. is a problem for you .. because?

Remember, his investments are creating jobs, not gathering dust.


123 posted on 02/13/2005 5:01:54 PM PST by nsmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: nsmart
And a rich man who buys less or buy used .. is a problem for you .. because?

It's not. I have no complaint with that, it was only an observation. I applaud the man/woman (rich or poor) that is wise with his goods.
124 posted on 02/13/2005 5:08:58 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Only when you are prone and room temperature.
125 posted on 02/13/2005 5:12:47 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Democrats will stall in the house and block in the senate.


126 posted on 02/13/2005 5:18:05 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: crz
Democrats will stall in the house and block in the senate.

And they won't be alone either! There will be PLENTY of republicans at their sides!

The ONLY reason this movement has gotten to the point it has is millions of grass roots activists all across this land laying down the law to their employees in Washington. We FULLY intend continue doing just that until the progressive income tax and the IRS are where they properly belong; on the ash heap of history!

There are three courses one can take. He can either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

127 posted on 02/13/2005 5:26:33 PM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Huckabee is on Cspan talking about Free Republic


128 posted on 02/13/2005 5:52:20 PM PST by nsmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: groanup
$10,000 invested for ten years at 10% minus 30% taxes: $19,671.51

$10,000 invested at 10% for ten years with no taxes: $25,937.42
$19,671 spent with no NRST = $19,671 in purchasing power.

$25,937 spent with 23% inclusive NRST = $19,971 in purchasing power.

So you're about even.
129 posted on 02/13/2005 5:53:46 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It is still fantasy bullshit, either way. We will be lucky if prices stay the same.
What unPrincipled isn't mentioning is that he is factoring in employee's payroll and income taxes into his 20-30% price drop. For prices to drop based on these taxes, wages would have to drop. Purchasing power (real wages) would not change much with a price drop. The more likely scenario is that prices will go up by the amount of the FairTax and nominal wages will stay the same.
130 posted on 02/13/2005 5:56:49 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: crz
Is this on the floor now? Or did they simply intro it and shelve it? When is debate to take place or has debate started on it?
I wouldn't expect Congress to do much on tax reform until the President's Commission gives their report. They start their hearings on Wednesday.
131 posted on 02/13/2005 5:59:08 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

Not even at all..

1) people see what government costs

2) no compliance costs .. hundreds of billions

3) no IRS to examine your bowel movements


132 posted on 02/13/2005 6:00:08 PM PST by nsmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mombrown1
Imagine companies around the world wanting to build businesses in the US because they would not be taxed.
Yes they would. The FairTax requires all income earned in the US by foreign corporations and non-resident aliens to be taxed at the FairTax rate.
133 posted on 02/13/2005 6:01:49 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7; Always Right
what is stupid is people who do not do the research on a subject - so easy to do with Internet - and jump to kneeJERK assumptions
I've done the research. Lots of it. And it all says (even the authors of the FairTax) that prices can't go down significantly without wages going down also. And that it's more likely that the Fed will adjust monetary policy to insure tax exclusive prices stay the same.


Response to William Gale

by Dan Mastromarco and David Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Memorandum, March 16, 1998

If we assume that consumption taxes are fully incident on the factors of production, then the return to capital and the return to labor will decline by the amount of the tax. As noted earlier, under this incidence assumption, tax-inclusive prices would not be higher but the return to workers and capital would decline. Thus, in the absence of a special rule, government workers would experience a windfall. Their consumption prices would not go up and their wages would go up by the amount of the repealed income and payroll taxes. Since government value added is not taxed, their wages would not appear to be subject to downward pressure.

Taking the alternate incidence assumption, namely that the FairTax would be fully passed forward and borne by consumers, government employees would pay the tax just like private sector workers, since tax-inclusive prices would be higher by the amount of the FairTax.

Criticism of the Sales Tax for Residential Real Estate Isn't Built on a Solid Foundation

by Dan R. Mastromarco and David R. Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Tax Notes, June 29, 1998, p. 1779

Footnote #13: The degree to which after-tax wages will increase is a function of the incidence of both the sales tax and the repealed taxes. If the income tax and payroll taxes are incident on income recipients and the sales tax is incident on consumers, then after-tax wages and returns will go up quite considerably as will tax inclusive prices. If the sales tax is incident on the factors of production, then after-tax wages and the after-tax return to capital will not go up to any considerable degree (at first) but producer prices will fall and retail prices, even including the sales tax, will remain roughly comparable. The real purchasing power of wages will undoubtedly increase considerably over time because of a larger capital stock (increasing productivity), microeconomic efficiencies caused by a more efficient allocation of scarce resources, and higher productivity from lower compliance costs.

The Price Level

Switching to an indirect tax such as a valued-added tax (VAT) or national sales tax will probably cause a one-time jump in the price level, with no permanent change in the inflation rate. By contrast, any consumption-based tax that levies taxes directly on households will probably have little or no effect on the price level.

A VAT or sales tax is likely to boost the price level because each one collects the tax on labor income from the firm or retailer. That treatment represents a change from the current income tax system, which collects tax on labor income directly from the worker. Because the cost of labor to the firm would include the new tax, real compensation paid to workers would initially have to fall to match the value of their so-called "marginal product" and keep them fully employed.

Real compensation can fall in two ways: nominal compensation can drop or the price level can rise. What happens will ultimately depend on the Federal Reserve. If it fixes the price level, nominal compensation will have to fall--an event that workers might accept because they would no longer have to pay income tax and hence would take home about the same pay as now. Most analysts note, however, that workers have resisted cuts in nominal compensation in the past. Those analysts expect that firms fearing morale problems or facing union contracts will hesitate to make such cuts. In that case, nominal compensation may fall slowly to its new level, leading to higher unemployment rates in the interim. To prevent that outcome, the Federal Reserve is expected to allow the price level to rise. For example, a VAT or sales tax of 10 percent would lead to a one-time jump of 10 percent in the price of consumer products.

Further price increases may ensue if compensation is indexed to inflation. In that case, the price rise will cause a corresponding rise in compensation, and real compensation will not drop enough to maintain full employment, requiring a further price rise--that is, a wage-price spiral. That problem occurred in the United Kingdom when it adopted a VAT in 1979, although the extent of indexing there was greater than it is in the United States.

Source: U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1997). The Economic Effects of Comprehensive Tax Reform. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Setting aside for a moment temporary inflexibilites in contracts for wages, bonds, and so forth (we address these later), whether ther overall level of prices changes or not does not materially affect this story.16 Even if prices do not rise at all, moving to a consumption tax would cause the purchasing power of both wages and existing wealth to decline by an average of 20 percent relative to a situation with no taxes. Nominal wages would be forced down because firms would be earning 20 percent less, after taxes, from the output produced by workers. The nominal value of existing capital assets - in the form of, for example, share prices - which constitute much of old wealth, would also decline because the output they produce provides 20 percent less in after-tax revenues.
  1. Whether in fact consumer prices would rise in the event of tax reform depends on the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve Board.

Source: Slemrod, Joel and Jon Bakija, Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Great Debate over Tax Reform, MIT Press: Cambridge, 2004.

Transition Costs and Macroeconomic Adjustments

One of the most difficult issues to address in considering a shift to consumption taxes is the transition from the current system to the new tax regime.5 While all shifts to a consumption tax cause some common transitional disturbances and windfall gains and losses, the most serious problems arise from a shift to a national retail sales tax or to a value added tax. In these cases, a tax formerly largely collected from individuals is now collected at the firm level -- either from retailers on total sales or from both final and intermediate producers' value added. Flat taxes avoid this problem but can result in confiscatory taxes on existing assets.

Price Accommodation and Short-run Contractions Under a Retail Sales Tax or VAT

Holding prices fixed, these firms would need to reduce payments to workers to retain profit levels. In fact, many firms would not have enough of a profit margin to pay the tax without something else -- either prices or wages -- adjusting. Consider, for example, a grocery retailer that may have a 1% or 2% profit margin now owing a tax equal to 20% of receipts. This firm simply does not have the cash to pay the tax. If it is difficult to lower wages (and presumably it would be), a significant one-time price inflation, to allow these costs to be passed forward in prices instead, would be required to avoid a potentially serious economic contraction. Note that the price increase, were it possible to implement correctly and precisely, would solve the transition problem because although prices would rise, individuals would have more income to purchase the higher priced goods -- and demand would not fall. It is difficult, however, for the monetary authorities to engineer such a large price change. Moreover, even with the monetary expansion in place to do so, the imposition of such a tax would be disruptive if firms are reluctant to immediately raise prices, again leading to an economic contraction. That is, firms could contract their business, or even close down, until output had contracted enough to raise prices.

These disruptions are not minor in nature -- imagine the difficulties of engineering and absorbing a one-time price increase that is likely to be close to 20% (the level, approximately, that might realistically be needed to replace the income tax).6 Even if such an inflation could be managed, there are always concerns that any large inflation could create inflationary expectations -- it's hard to manage a single one-year price increase. In fact, economists who judge a consumption tax to be superior to an income tax may nevertheless be skeptical about the advisability of making the change because of these transition effects.

  1. See CRS Report 98-901, Short-Run Macroeconomic Effects of Fundamental Tax Reform, by Jane G. Gravelle and G. Thomas Woodward for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
  2. The rate would depend on whether and the extent of any family exemption. A 20% tax exclusive rate would correspond to a tax inclusive rate between 16% and 17%.
  3. 7 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Symposium Papers, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 20, 1997, JCS-21-97 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 24.
Source: CRS Report for Congress: The Flat Tax, Value-Added Tax, and National Retail Sales Tax: Overview of the Issues. Esenwein, Gregg A. and Jane Gravelle.

Prices.

Prices for consumer goods and services quickly rise by the amount of the tax, and then some. The portion of the price increase in excess of the tax is due in part to the higher cost of imports (from the weaker dollar) coupled with the ability of some domestic producers of competing goods to hike their price to that of imports. Consumer prices similarly rise 25 percent -- roughly the nominal rate of sales tax, unadjusted for any exemptions or transition rules -- by 2002 and gradually drop from that peak to a level that remains about 18 percent above the pre-change baseline.

Examined on a year-over-year basis, these price increases generally amount to a large, one-time hike in prices as the NRST is imposed, with some moderation of this increase in the longer run. Due to a weaker dollar, merchandise import prices increase by nearly 4 percent shortly after the NRST is imposed and are 6.5 percent over baseline levels in 2010. Merchandise export prices are also above baseline levels. In 2001 and 2002 they are nearly 3 percent above the baseline. However, due to lower interest rates, which reduce business costs, export prices are only slightly greater than baseline levels for most of the remainder of the forecast period. The overall impact on prices is measured by the change in the GDP deflator, which initially rises 20 percent above the baseline price level before settling back to a 13 percent price rise relative to the baseline.

The notion espoused by some that pre-tax prices would drop some 20-30 percent under a NRST (so that after-tax prices would not rise and may even decline) is a peculiar one. This could only happen if all of the personal income tax, the corporation income tax and payroll taxes are currently embodied in retail prices. Tax incidence -- that is, who actually bears the ultimate tax burden -- is an elusive question that has been the focus of many economic papers, because the answer is not clear. However, the general consensus among economists is that perhaps a portion of the corporate income tax may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but that the majority is ultimately paid by corporate owners in the form of lower after-tax profits and by employees in the form of lower compensation. Most economists concede that personal income taxes and payroll taxes are ultimately borne by labor and are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Source: Statement of John G. Wilkins, Managing Director, Barcroft Consulting Group, on behalf of National Retail Federation. Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform. April 11, 2000.

Transitional Issues in Tax Reform

Price Level Effects

Because the flat tax is similar in structure to the existing income tax system, its implementation would have relatively little effect on the absolute price level. Both before- and after-tax wages would be roughly similar before and after reform, so that nominal prices remain roughly constant.

In contrast, the effect of implementing an NRST on the absolute price level is less certain. One possibility is that the tax could be fully shifted forward in the form of higher prices for consumption goods, with no change in the price of investment goods, which are untaxed under the NRST. At the other end of the spectrum of possible responses, nominal prices could remain constant. Under this scenario, before-tax real wages would have to fall roughly to the level of prereform after-tax real wages in response to the elimination of the income tax. Intermediate responses between the "full price adjustment" and "no price adjustment" scenarios are of course also possible.

Choosing between these various scenarios requires making necessarily speculative assumptions about the response of the monetary authorities to the imposition of the NRST. However, most analysts assume that the monetary response would be sufficiently accommodating that the full price adjustment scenario would obtain.

The primary rationale underlying this assumption is the view that the downward flexibility of nominal wages is quite limited, in part because most wage contracts and agreements are specified in nominal terms. Thus, a tax reform that required wage reductions to reach a new equilibrium would be quite costly as these wage reductions would initially be distributed unevenly across industries. This in turn might result in considerable unemployment in sectors characterized by rigid wages, as well as misallocations of labor, at least in the short run. Proponents of the full price adjustment view assume that monetary policy would be expansionary to avoid these costs.

Most observers fall into the full price adjustment camp. For example, McLure (1996, p. 23) concludes that it would be "hard to imagine the monetary authorities not accommodating such an increase in prices." Gravelle (1995, p. 59) argues that full price adjustment is likely because a "national sales tax would tend to produce an economic contraction if no price accommodation is made." In its analysis of the distributional implications of implementing consumption taxes, the Joint Committee of Taxation (1993, p. 59) concludes that, "Unless there are convincing reasons to assume otherwise, the JCT staff assumes the Federal Reserve will accommodate the policy change and allow prices to rise." Finally, Bradford (1996a, p. 135), in discussing the same issue in the context of a value-added tax, observes that, "It is commonly believed that introducing a value-added tax of the consumption type will bring with it a monetary policy adjustment that would result in a one-time increase in the price level ;and no change in payments to workers in nominal terms."

Nevertheless, opinion on this issue is certainly no unanimous. For example, the alternative assumption [that wages will fall] is implicitly made by Jorgenson and Wilcoxen, who argue that implementing a national sales tax would reduce producer prices on average by 25 percent. Auerbach (1996) takes a compromise position by assuming partial price adjustment. In addition, European experience with the introduction of the VAT is mixed, generally suggesting partial price adjustment. On the other hand, Besley and Rosen (1999) find full (or even more than 100 percent) forward shifting of state sales taxes in the United States.

Source: Zodrow, George R. (2002). "Transitional Issues in Tax Reform." In United States Tax Reform in the 21st Century, George Zodrow and Peter Mieszkowski, Editors. Cambridge University Press.

Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms

Does it matter how the central bank responds when the tax system is reformed? Some economists would argue that in a very general sense it does not. Many would argue that the central bank's response would have little long-run effect, because what really matters is the productive capacity of the economy and because there could be no money illusion in the long run.

And, in the short run, the standard relation between prices and money makes it clear that, under limiting assumptions, the central bank need not change monetary policy. Consider the transition from our present tax system to a consumption tax. Ignoring any incentive effects caused by the tax reform, velocity and output are unchanged. With a revenue-neutral tax reform, aggregate after-tax income is unchanged, so there need be no demand-driven effects on consumer prices. Under these conditions, v, y, and q remain unchanged as a result of the tax reform, and thus maintenance of the status quo implies that the central bank need not change its policy. Assuming that output is constant, the central bank could eliminate any transitory price changes in the long run by leaving monetary policy unchanged.

But things may not be that simple. The implied changes to wages and producer prices require a degree of flexibility in the economy that many might find unlikely. Specifically, for the consumer price to stay constant, the producer price must fall by the amount of the tax. And because a drop in the producer price means that the business revenue produced by hiring another worker drops, the before-tax wage must drop by a corresponding amount. Many have argued that such price and wage changes are implausible and that the central bank should "accommodate" a transitory change in the consumer price level by adjusting monetary policy so that it is consistent with constant producer prices and wages.

Source: Bull, Nicholas, and Lawrence B. Lindsey. 1996. "Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms." National Tax Journal 49.3 (September): 359-79.

The Price Level

When Britain adopted consumption taxation in 1979, the price level rose by the amount of the new tax. This jump in prices caused substantial disruption in the economy, partly because it stimulated further rounds of wage and price increases through indexation formulas that failed to exclude consumption taxes from the measured cost of living. Standard macroeconomic analysis suggests that the underlying cause of such a price effect is the contractual determination of wages in money terms. Under an income tax, the wage is set in pretax terms. Workers finance consumption out of what remains of their wages after paying taxes. Under a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT), the wage is set on an after-tax basis. Workers use their entire wages for consumption and pay their consumption taxes as they consume. When an income tax is replaced by a sales tax or VAT, the wage bargain should be revised to lower the purchasing power of wages or by raising the prices of consumption goods. As a practical matter, the second always occurs.

One of the advantages of a flat tax or a personal cash-flow consumption tax is that both leave the wage bargain in pretax form. There is no disruptive jump in the price level. Unlike other effects I have discussed, the increase in the price level is not intrinsic to a consumption tax, but is the result of a particular choice about how to administer the tax.

Source: Potential Disruption from the Move to a Consumption Tax, by Robert E. Hall. The American Economic Review.

134 posted on 02/13/2005 6:06:02 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: nsmart
1) people see what government costs
You make the assumption that they don't currently. I can tell you precisely how much I paid in income and payroll taxes last year. Tell me, how much did you pay in state sales taxes last year?
135 posted on 02/13/2005 6:07:50 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
For prices to drop based on these taxes, wages would have to drop.

I've made that point on numerous occassions, but Fair Taxers claim that people will get to take home more money AND prices will go down. Sorry, but both can't happen. I have always questioned if employees get to pocket all this savings in income tax, how am I gonna reduce my price by 30% to compensate for this tax? None of their anaylsis ever makes any sense.

136 posted on 02/13/2005 6:37:37 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
None of their anaylsis ever makes any sense.
The problem is that it's an "either/or" situation. They present it as an "and" situation. It's the fundamental lie of the FairTaxers.
137 posted on 02/13/2005 6:52:54 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
The FairTax requires all income earned in the US by foreign corporations and non-resident aliens to be taxed at the FairTax rate

Huh? The Fair Tax abolishes income taxes.

138 posted on 02/13/2005 7:03:52 PM PST by groanup (http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Huh? The Fair Tax abolishes income taxes.
Not on foreign corporations or non-resident aliens.


`SEC. 905. WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

    `(a) In General- All persons, in whatever capacity acting (including lessees or mortgagors or real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States) having control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any income to the extent such income constitutes gross income from sources within the United States of any nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation shall deduct and withhold from that income a tax equal to 23 percent thereof.

    `(b) Exception- No tax shall be required to be deducted from interest on portfolio debt investments.

    `(c) Treaty Countries- In the case of payments to nonresident alien individuals, foreign partnerships, or foreign corporations that have a residence in (or the nationality of a country) that has entered into a tax treaty with the United States, then the rate of withholding tax prescribed by the treaty shall govern.'.

139 posted on 02/13/2005 7:14:21 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
The FairTax requires all income earned in the US by foreign corporations and non-resident aliens to be taxed at the FairTax rate.

That Sir is an outright LIE!

The FairTax imposes no tax what so ever on incomes of any kind!

140 posted on 02/13/2005 7:16:44 PM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-651 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson