Posted on 01/22/2008 3:43:13 AM PST by xcamel
Look up the word “fair” in Webster’s dictionary and you’ll find this definition: “Free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception.” Ironically, the so-called “fair tax” proposal that has been getting some attention lately is fraught with favoritism, self-interest, bias and deception.
The phrase “fair tax” is a new way to refer to the old proposal to create a national retail sales tax. Such a tax would replace essentially all federal income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax levied on all purchases. So instead of having Social Security and Medicare taxes taken out paychecks and filing those April tax returns, Americans would pay a national sales tax on every purchase they make. There are four myths about this tax proposal that must be dispelled in order to have a meaningful debate about its merits.
The first such myth is that the rate would need to be set at 23% in order to raise enough money to run the federal government. Not so fast. Under the proposal if you buy a $100 item the tax would be $30. Most of us would describe that as a 30% tax. But proponents would have us believe that the tax rate should be calculated by dividing the tax amount by the total purchase price including the tax. So divide $30 by $130 by and you get 23%. That is truly fuzzy math at its finest.
The second myth that needs to be addressed is that the IRS could be abolished because the federal government would no longer collect income and payroll taxes. That might technically be true but a new massive bureaucracy would have to be created in its place. This new agency would be in charge of sending every single American an approximately $450 check at the beginning of every month that presumably reimburses them for taxes they pay on their income up to the federal poverty level. This new agency would also be charged with making sure that anyone who sells anything is collecting the tax. So the guys who live out in the country near my home who shell the pecans that grow on my trees would have to start charging me sales tax and send that money to the federal government. And for each of these types of services that aren’t taxed or retailers that aren’t discovered, the tax rate on other purchases has to be that much higher.
This brings me to the third myth – that a 30% rate would be adequate to run the federal government. There is no way that a national retail sales tax could pay for current federal programs without setting the rate at least 45%. The allegation that a 30% rate is sufficient relies on some strange assumptions such as requiring government to tax its own spending and even taxing free services like free checking accounts and free care at veterans’ hospitals. It also assumes that every single transaction is taxed, including lots of things that aren’t taxed currently. So, imagine adding $90,000 to the purchase of a $200,000 home or adding $450 to your $1,000 monthly rent. Better yet, imagine adding $4,500 for every $10,000 paid in college tuition.
Fourth, and most importantly, it is a myth that the tax is “fair.” A deeper look at the proposal clearly shows that it would raise taxes substantially on most Americans while giving the wealthy a substantial tax cut. That’s because most Americans must spend most or all of their incomes to make ends meet, while better-off people can afford to spend a much lower share of their incomes. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the typical middle-income North Carolinian who earns about $34,000 per year would pay an additional $3,800 in federal taxes. The state’s wealthiest 1% of taxpayers whose average income is over $700,000 would get a tax break of around $150,000 per year.
It’s not fun to be in the role of defending the current federal tax system because it is confusing and not always fair. But ideas for replacing it need to be grounded in sound tax policy principles. An idea that relies on myths and gimmicks to get attention is not one worth considering.
Elaine Mejia is the Director of the N.C. Budget and Tax Center
I hope that hand you're licking has been washed. LOL.
The rate is stipulated in the Bill.That's only for the first year. After the first year the rate "shall be determined" by unelected bureaucrats at Social Security...It too is "stipulated in the bill".
The rate has been confirmed by Art Laffer’s firm, here:Here's a laugher from Laffer..well lie actually.
"To ensure that income taxes are not reinstated in the future, the FairTax plan also calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."Apparently Laugher decided to parrot Fairtax rhetoric rather than actual research...like reading the bill.
you have some really wierd fetishes...
Something like that.
It will vary by the fraction of labor in the product and components from suppliers (from suppliers(from suppliers)). It could be fairly high for services. Likely less for products from $100/bbl oil.
This is the analysis I've being trying to find from these folks. Haven't seen it. Maybe groanup can help (I'm sure he'll NEVER post to this post as I'm not talking to him).
I don't see no steenkin' arguments.
So you’d rather have less productivity and investment?Sales not sales taxes encourage production.
Encouraging people to buy used nor imposing a huge sales tax at the other end of production won't encourage more production.
Well, it sure will just before it hits. ;-)
It'd be interesting to see what the case of M$ might be given that their marginal cost of production is dang near zero.
You wouldn't.
“Target Objective: All Roosevelt students will make personal growth toward becoming responsible citizens by participating in activities that foster a positive school/home/community relationship, as measured by data from discipline referrals.”
I would.
Hey, that is not is name. LOL
I'd switch his axes so that tax rate is the independent variable. The other "order" makes no sense to me, but then I'm not a dismal scientist.
But you are a nicer poster than the “dismal penny stock broker”
You've been asking about diesel fuel. First of all, you'd better worry about the base price more than the tax. Secondly, the FairTax will only bring the price of diesel fuel down about 9-15%. Third, if you want to store a year's worth of fuel fine. Buy one year's worth at historically high prices, genius, and pay the cost to store it. LOL!
Why isn't it 23%?
What say you now? Wealth destroyer?
Someone is getting lessons on who really creates (and controls) wealth...It ain't you.
Cool. If that reduction (15%) is the exclusive price, I get an average 20% (tax free) return for one year’s worth of fuel. How’s the gov’t feel about not getting a revenue neutral intake for the first year?
And here I thought oil is running at <$90/bbl rather than the record $100. When is the FT going into effect? Tomorrow, Yesterday?, When oil was at $100? (genius)? LOL.
What’s your problem? Buy at the top? Too bad. LOL!
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.