Fair Tax - Straightening Out Some Confusion

When Congressman Linder and I were busy researching and writing The FairTax Book we knew full well that it would one day become the focal point for those opposed to this tax reform idea. We tried, therefore, to make sure that our numbers and claims were correct and consistent with the research that went into the drafting of HR 25.

On review, and after reading the critiques of opponents to the FairTax plan, we have concluded that there is one element of the FairTax that could have been present with more clarity in the book; the concept of embedded taxes and keeping 100% of your paycheck. Those who have much to lose if the FairTax were to become law will focus on these areas in an attempt to undermine support, so let's put their objections and distortions to rest by addressing those matters here and now.

We explained in the book that the FairTax plan was revenue neutral. By this we meant revenue neutral for everyone ... the government, businesses and individuals. You can't put more money in the pockets of one without taking money out of the pockets of another. The harsh reality is that politicians would not support the FairTax if it meant less revenue for the federal government; business leaders would not support the FairTax if it meant a decrease in corporate earnings and profits, and the people would most certainly not support the FairTax if it meant a decrease in their income. Taking an snapshot view of our economy, an increase in income in one of these sectors would necessarily mean a decrease in another. This is why the FairTax was designed to be absolutely revenue neutral – leaving everyone pretty much where they are in terms of income or revenue. To put it more bluntly, there is no free lunch in the FairTax plan. There is no "something-for-nothing."

This brings us to the question of embedded taxes in the cost of consumer goods and services, and your paychecks.

As explained in The FairTax Book, there are taxes embedded in everything we buy. Every entity which provides a product or service in the design, production, marketing, distribution and sale of every consumer good or service will incur some tax liability as they perform their particular function. This tax liability will be incorporated into whatever these individuals or business entitles charge for their services, and will all passed through to become a part of the final cost of the product or service.

Every employee of any company involved in American commerce is also a provider of a service, and, as such, the employee incurs a tax liability as a result of his or her work. This tax liability is incorporated into what the employee charges the employer for their services, and is eventually incorporated into the final retail cost of the employer's product or service. Each employee is essentially a separate business entity providing a product, be it physical or mental labor, to the employer.

The extensive research behind HR 25, The FairTax Bill, shows that the average embedded taxes in every consumer product or service is about 22%. In some industries, such as leather goods, the embedded tax is smaller. In other industries, such as homebuilding and construction, the embedded tax is higher, but it averages out to somewhere between 22 and 23%. With the passage of The FairTax Bill, those embedded taxes disappear. These embedded taxes include the combined tax burdens of all entities involved in bringing those goods or services to market, and that includes you, the employee, and the taxes you incur as a result of your employment.

We write in The FairTax Book that the competitive pressures of the marketplace will force prices down when embedded taxes disappear from the cost of retail goods and services, and we cite 22% as the average amount of those embedded taxes. Does this 22% include the income and payroll taxes that are paid by employees? Yes, it does. So ... what does this mean to your paycheck after the FairTax becomes law?

When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both. Either way, you can see that the amount of money you actually receive as pay – the amount you can put into your bank account – will not decrease, and may actually increase.

On a larger scale real wages will rise to the extent to which the nation's employers decide to return the embedded costs of their employee's income and payroll taxes to the employee. Likewise, the cost of the products or services produced by the employer will be reduced to the extent to which that employer retains all or a portion of those income and payroll taxes together with the other taxes on capital and labor eliminated by the FairTax. Once again, a zero-sum, revenue neutral game.

Now, let's elaborate on the "keep 100% of your paycheck" line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear. One thing is certain: You will suffer no decrease in real or net earnings --- the amount of each paycheck you deposit into your bank account every other week. The "keep 100% of your paycheck" concept can more easily be applied to those who either change jobs or come into the labor force after the implementation of the FairTax. A new worker will negotiate a wage with an employer knowing that the amount negotiated will be the amount that worker receives every two weeks ... no deductions. Likewise, when you change employers you, too, will negotiate a wage that will not be subject to withholding, and you will get 100% of your wages in each paycheck.

Some of you reading this amplification of the principle's of the FairTax may have come to a rather interesting and accurate conclusion. The reality is that in America we're already operating our federal government off a consumption tax. A convoluted and impossible to understand consumption tax, but consumption tax nonetheless. We say this because ultimately all taxes paid by businesses or individuals eventually make their way through our economic system until they are embedded in the cost of some consumer item or service. In other words, taxes, like that other stuff you've heard about, roll down hill. At the bottom of that hill we find the retail sale and you, the ultimate consumer.

As we said in the book, and as we repeat here, the FairTax is not a "something for nothing" scheme. It was designed to be and, in fact, is revenue neutral. Having said that; the non-government economists who studied the FairTax play are nearly unanimous in their agreement that the implementation of the FairTax will lead to unprecedented economic growth in the United States. We will see economic growth in our economy of such magnitude that it will, sooner rather than later, lift all boats ---- including yours.

There are clearly more than the two alternatives you offer as the be-all and end-all options you proffer (your "economists assume ..." nonsense). And any claims about prices declining are hardly based upon a single economist as you state. None of you SQLers have ever been willing to admit that the costs of cascading taxation embedded into prices will be removed when the FairTax becomes law. This will certainly work to reduce prices and I have no doubt that studies are ongoing on these effects.

There is certainly no reason why there is not AT LEAST a third assumption having wages increase and prices decrease - but this doesn't fit the SQL playbill of disinformation so you never mention it as a possibility. It is, however, clearly another option to the two you present and probably the most likely of all. And your "economists assume" only two outcomes statement is nonsense. That's YOUR statement.

And there is nothing that I have seen in "The FairTax Book" that states that both benefits occur simultaneously in any event - that again is merely your statement to try to persuade others that any FairTax supporter is lying. They certainly could both occur and whether at the same time or reasonably close to each other is difficult to say. Are you trying to persuade us that only one will occur exclusively of the other? On what do you base that assumption???

Well, Nightie your #33 on this thread (of which you seem so proud) is just the same old rehash you're done previously. Perhaps you have re-arranged the order of some of the snippets, but that can easily be sorted out in my response to your original post of this nonsense which was ---

"The 11 cut-and-pastes you stitched together in your post (and aren’t YOU the guy continually criticizing ancient_geezer for HIS cut-and-pastes??) Fall into 2 categories - FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and OOC (Out of Context quotation). The FUD Factor items are marked with a “*” and the OOC items with a “+”.

The 11 items are:
1 - Garner (Zodrow, Gravelle, Gale)*
2 - Koltikoff+
3 - Response to Gale by Mastromarco/Burton+
4 - Mastromarco/Burton real estate +
5 - CBO Price Level*
6 - Slemrod/Bakija; Taxing Ourselves*
7 - Gravelle & Esenwein; CRS Overview*
8 - Wilkins; National Retail Federation*
9 - Zodrow; Transitional Issues*
10 - Bull & Lindsey; Monetary Implications*
11 - Hall; Price Level*

Let’s take the OOC items first -
Item 2 (Koltikoff) - in a two paragraph discussion of whether or not the FairTax is regressive in theory, the author made certain assumptions to illustrate a point. You merely took these assumptions and presented them as though they were a fact - his belief - he was presenting. They were assumptions to illustrate a point, not fact he was presenting.

Item 3 (Response to Gale) - You conveniently left out the portion where the responders point out that prices would drop with the assumption of the FairTax, and that Gale, in fact, was contradicting himself. Here’s a link to the entire response midway on page 14 (through midway on page 15) where it says:
” J. Gail Perspective: Consumer Pricing: Up, Down and Sideways Simultaneously”. Gale completely overlooks the fact that prices would drop with the onset of the FairTax as the responders point out. After this price drop, prices would then be raised up again to some degree by the sales tax which is the meaning of their statement “... prices will increase by the amount of the sales tax but returns to labor and capital will be higher.”

Item 4 (Real Estate Foundation) - The footnote you posted from this response also suffers from the same flaw in reasoning as Item 3 just above. Price will first decrease with the advent of the FairTax causing the after tax increase in wages mentioned as well as the increase of prices back in an upward direction from their decrease to the lowered level mentioned above

So much for your out of context quotations. Next we take up the FUD Factor Items:

Item 1 (Garner) with points from (Zodrow, Gravelle, Gale) - As with almost all of the liberal FairTax opponents, the discussion presents what amounts to a description of a VAT structure (calling it a “consumption” tax) and comparing that to a flawed description of the FairTax (which includes a discussion of exemptions/exceptions “required”). In addition the discussion goes on to the SQL “leap of Faith” (as do you) that prices MUST increase with the advent of the FairTax ... while showing no such convincing (or even fairly convincing beyond just stating it) evidence of why this would happen. Garner is obviously not too familiar with the FairTax as he describes a decline in bond values and the idea of corporations “losing” their depreciation - which of course is nonsense under the FairTax. He also uses heavily from well-known SQL sources such as Zodrow, Gravelle, and Gale which in and of itself should merit serious concern.

Item 5 (CBO) - Hardly a benefactor of the Status Quo (yeah, right) but also makes the “Leap of Faith” as in Item 1 that prices must increase with the advent of the FairTax. They do, of course, but only after first declining by the removal of the income tax component leaving them more or less the same overall. Despite that lapse, the opinion is offered that the Fed will step in to raise prices (without any clear or convincing indication of why this might be so; merely the claim that it is so).

Item 6 (Slemrod/Bakija) - Here, from a long time SQL advocate (Slemrod) we see the similar liberal “Leap of Faith” that the sky would fall in the opinion (offered again without any backup) that corporate earnings would fall by 20%. A slightly different twist is given in that the Fed rather than raising prices would now, God-like, merely “monitor” prices to decide if any action need be taken to PREVENT A PRICE RISE (rather than causing it as in Item 5. Perhaps rather than calling these sorts of SQL ploys a “Leap of Faith” (which of course they are), they should be called the Chicken Little Syndrome.

Item 7 (Gravelle & Esenwein - CRS) - Once again we see the Chicken Little Syndrome in full operation where any price reduction due to the FairTax is completely ignored and sweeping statements reflecting a great lack of understanding of the FairTax are made by claiming that the tax “must be paid” in an example industry having a 1-2% profit margin which “now owing a tax equal to 20% of receipts” - all the while ignoring the fact that the business does not pay the sales tax (at all, let alone out of its “profit margin”), but that the customer of the business pays the tax. In addition, the CRS folk seem to not understand that the FairTax is border-adjustable as well as the old unwarranted assumption about lower wages being required (for some reason). There are a good number of other flaws in the paper itself other than the selected snippet posted. We also see the use of the old chestnut of anonymous “... 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. You’d think that at least these “unnamed economists” would appreciate the credit (?) of being named.

Item 8 (Wilkins - National Retail Federation) - This is a study originally commissioned by the NRF from Coopers & Lybrand (who had, as I recall, Wilkins as the leader of the group doing the “investigation”). It is of the Chicken Little/Leap of Faith persuasion and is impossible to tell much about - aside from the lack of veracity - since, despite requests, it was never published so others could investigate its pronouncements. This link:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/PwCRebuttal.pdf
has a refutation of the Wilkins/PwC/NRF “study”. A HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READ!!

Item 9 (Zodrow - Transitional Issues) - this is merely George once again “doing his thing”. He pretty much makes the usual Chicken Little observations, but is at least honest enough to mention that the “... opinion on this issue is certainly not unanimous.“ And goes on to cite the Jorgenson 25% or so price decline. Kudos, George, for inserting a bit of much needed honesty into the discussion. Makes the Leap of Faith about the Fed being magical and omniscient.

Item 10 (Bull & Lindsey - Monetary Influences) - Makes the Leap of Faith about the wage decline without even considering the removal of the cascaded income tax in prices. This may be one of the reasons that Lindsey is no longer a Presidential Advisor on the economy.

Item 11 (Hall - Price Level) - Why is it not surprising that someone largely thought of as an author of the Flat Tax be strongly in favor of that over the FairTax (which he nowhere demonstrates an understand of aside from the requisite Leap of Faith that wages will be lowered and prices raised (the Chicken Little Syndrome again) while ignoring any price reductions offered by the advent of the FairTax.

So, let me see now if I have this straight ... the FairTax supporters may not use the economic data which is presented in good detail on the Americans For Fair Taxation website (because you say so) while you are quite free to use all of the snippets you can gather up from the known SQL defenders (who seldom, if ever, admit to being so - just like you) even if they are only op/ed pieces with little or no economic detail? By George, I think I’ve got it!!! "

To be correct we should note that the study in #8 is now "available", but only if you wish to buy it - which I certainly do not since it's been heavily rebutted.

That "stuff" is no better now than then - but nice try to try to trick the unwary!

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.