Posted on 08/01/2005 10:01:16 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
President Bush says he wants to reform the tax system and has appointed a tax reform commission that will issue a report in September. It was originally supposed have finished by July 31, but the White House asked the commission to delay its report so that it would not interfere with the Social Security reform effort, which needs a few more months before it can be declared legally dead.
When this whole effort started, I said on numerous occasions in columns and interviews that the White House had made a very serious error in attempting to do both Social Security reform and tax reform at the same time. The issues were too big, I said, and it would be lucky if it could do one or the other. Trying to do both ran the risk of accomplishing neither. The delay in the tax reform report shows that the White House has finally started to figure this out.
We still don't know what the commission will recommend. The assumption has been that it would endorse one or more comprehensive reform options, such as the flat tax or national retail sales tax. However, indications now are that the commission's report may be more targeted and less comprehensive.
The other week, the tax commission's co-chairmen, former Sens. Connie Mack, R-Fla., and John Breaux, D-La., said that abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax would definitely be one recommendation sent to the Treasury Department. (Technically, the commission reports to the secretary of the treasury, who will then decide what recommendations to forward to the president.)
The AMT unquestionably is a very bad part of the tax system and ought to be abolished. But by making this isolated recommendation, it suggests that the commission's report will be less comprehensive than previously thought. After all, if the commission were to recommend, say, a flat tax system, then there would be no need to make abolition of the AMT a separate recommendation. It would be abolished automatically.
Therefore, I think we may be more likely to get a laundry list of specific recommendations for improving the tax system than a master plan for complete overhaul. The problem with this is that there are any number of reports that have already detailed specific failings of the tax system from the point of view of fairness, efficiency and administrability. They are all gathering dust on library shelves.
Secondly, trying to do tax reform this way means that the commission must necessarily come up with a list of tax increases to pay for the reforms. The commission is under a mandate to makes its recommendations "revenue-neutral." This means that the package must raise the same revenue as currently projected by today's tax system -- no more, no less.
It is certain, therefore, that the vast bulk of the public attention will be on the revenue raisers. For example, people are already assuming that the AMT repeal will be paid for by abolishing the deduction for state and local taxes. Naturally, this has high-tax states like New York and California up in arms. In 1986, then-New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, virtually killed this idea single-handedly. This time it could be California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
The high tax states like the federal deduction because it lowers their tax burden by the amount of one's federal tax bracket. If one itemizes and is in the 33 percent federal tax bracket, then this is like getting a one-third discount on your state and local taxes. Elimination of the deduction, therefore, would constitute a significant tax increase for many people even if they no longer have to pay the AMT.
In my opinion, these kinds of trade-offs are politically impossible. People will fight much harder to keep a current tax benefit than those who would benefit from a new one will fight for that. Consequently, the only way you can even hope to eliminate "sacred cow" deductions like that for state and local taxes is in a complete overhaul of the tax code. Trying to do it incrementally, as it appears the tax commission is suggesting, is simply doomed to failure.
Unfortunately, President Bush has never articulated a vision of tax reform, which explains why he is supporting a long list of new tax gimmicks -- I mean incentives -- for energy production and conservation, none of which have any place in a properly designed tax system, from either a liberal or conservative point of view. They just clutter up the tax code and make reform all the more difficult, because you have just created new constituencies in support of the status quo.
In his new book, "Flat Tax Revolution," magazine publisher Steve Forbes again explains the virtues of fundamental tax reform. I hope someone at the tax commission is reading it.
Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Townhall.com member group.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Worth talking about? I think you'll agree it is.
The last thing we need is some cockamamie national sales tax to depress consumer purchases and essentially devalue our currency since it will be able to buy less than ever before. Hell, take a look at any product that's had onerous taxes put on it and you'll note a long, steady decline in purchases of that product (think tobacco, people). And with a decline in purchases comes a decline in work and thus a decline in jobs and thus a decline in tax coffers.
And what's more, this will only serve to create a really lucrative tax-free black market that'll make the bootleggers of prohibition look like a Sunday School kids.
I believe that you misunderstand the FairTax (HR25/S25) and its provisions. Take a look at some of the benefits and improvements the FairTax will make:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html
or even take a quick peek at the bill itself:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:
You seem to think it's regresive ... it isn't at all. It will also help reduce consumer prices and boost economic activity in this country. And, as the most studied and researched tax bill ever put before Congress, it certainly isn't cockamamie .... and has the opinions of these 75 economists to prove it:
http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf
Tax reform is like stopping the tide from changing - it ain't gonna happen. Too many bureaucrats and too many lawyers
Joe Public makes $100,000. John Public makes $50,000. Jake Public makes $25,000. Joe buys items A, B and C. John buys items A, B and C. Jake buys items A, B and C. For those items, they all pay $5,000 each in federal sales taxes.
Jake just forked over 20% of his annual income in taxes. John just forked over 10% of his annual wage in taxes. Joe just forked over 5%.
Now explain to me how that's not regressive.
Addendum: if it cannot be explained in ways in which Joe and Jake Public can't grok, you're going to have a seriously hard time selling this idea.
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
An entirely LEFTWING argument.
I guess standards of fairness and equality before the law mean nothing to you.
You have blinders on about where and how much taxation is being extracted now.
Your comments are a great defense of the current hidden, ONEROUS, tax system of today.
But the most important factor in all of this is that neither Joe nor Jake is forced to give up a portion of his income and they both have a choice of when and where to pay their taxes.
In the real world, Joe will wind up spending more on unnecessary comforts than Jake will while the Jake's of the world may not pay ANY taxes. No SS no Medicaid and no NRST.
That is progressive.
Who cares if it is progressive or regressive. The National Sales Tax is VOLUNTARY!! If you don't want to pay the tax on food, you can grow your own. You can decide not to buy soft drinks. Etc.
I consider it pacing, if S.S. reform by itself does not work, then how about replace the way S.S. is collected in the package of tax reforms in a few months.
I respect President Bush in that he does not quit on something, he just tries a different approach.
Joe still has plenty of money left to spend, so he also buys items D, E, and F. John, buys only item D, while Jake stops after buying item C. Items A, B were food and clothing and Joe's, John's and Jakes prebate check paid the taxes on those items. Now, essentially, Joe pays taxes on items C, D, E, and F. John on items C and D. Jake only on item C. Joe pays a net total of $15,000 in taxes; John pays $5000 and Jake $2000. Now, Joe has paid 15%, John 10% and Jake 8%. Nice and progressive, thanks to the prebate.
As I stated in my post, that is by far the most important factor.
Who cares if it is progressive or regressive. The National Sales Tax is VOLUNTARY!! If you don't want to pay the tax on food, you can grow your own. You can decide not to buy soft drinks. Etc.If I don't want to pay the tax on the food I would prefer to buy at the grocery store, I must grow my own food? That's voluntary? I've changed my actions because of the constraints of the tax system, that's not voluntary
"Fairness" is one of those interesting, flexible words that mean different things to different people.
Let's consider a few examples of what's "fair" and what isn't.
Every year, the federal government spends a few million dollars on PBS, which is infamous for its left-wing bias.
Fair or unfair?
Unfair to conservatives, who have to pay for propaganda they feel is against the country's interest...
but that money is allocated by elected officials, elected by those conservatives according to the US Constitutional system. So, fair after all?
Every homeowner pays property tax for the schools, even if he has no kids. Fair or unfair?
Renters with 10 kids pay no property tax for the schools.
Fair or unfair?
How about municipal golf courses?
Some rich communities have town-subsidized golf courses which give a steep discount in membership dues to town residents. Is this fair to the town residents who don't play golf?
Is it less unfair if this is a very wealthy town, say, Westport, Connecticut, where every resident COULD afford the dues if s/he WANTED to play golf, than it would be in, say, Bridgeport, Connecticut, where vast swathes of the population are on welfare and could not afford even the subsidized golf dues?
The problem with doing everything by a point-of-sale tax is that you tax consumption, but you do not tax capital gains. Already capital gains are taxed more favorably than wages (is that really fair?) Going to a full sales tax would eliminate the tax on capital gains. Capital gains are possible because of a stable property law and justice system, paid for out of the community's taxes. Why should a whole system of moneymaking which can only exist because of the system itself be exempt from taxation to support that system?
Is this fairer:
Tax increases to personal wealth from whatever source derived, all at one rate.
Income includes capital gains, gifts and inheritances.
Then wages are not treated more harshly than capital appreciation. Why should they be? Wages are return on human capital. Why is it fair to discount human capital but to privilege money capital?
It isn't.
You can't get out of paying income taxes. They are levied BEFORE you do anything. Sales taxes are only levied AFTER you do something. You can look at the product with the tax added and say "I don't want to pay that". You can't do that with your income. You can't say "I've decided not to pay that much this week".
Empowerment is so foreign to some folks, they can't understand it.
As I stated in my post, that is by far the most important factor.Yeah! If you don't want to pay the sales tax, don't buy new food - buy used food! Sure you're eating crap, but you're doing it voluntarily and you're NOT PAYING TAXES!!
Nice try, but as you well know, the family consumption allowance (FCA) is specifically designed to cover the sales tax on necessities, without having to specifically define what a "necessity" is or exempt certain items from taxation.
Using the strawman "grow your own food" argument deliberately ignores this aspect of the plan.
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.