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

Skip to comments.

The Case for the 'FairTax'
Wall Street Journal Online ^ | March 7, 2005 | Laurence J. Kotlikoff

Posted on 03/08/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by n-tres-ted

Our tax code is a mess for a reason. Special interests pay for special favors. And with 17,000 pages and counting, there's plenty of places for our politicians to hide the kickbacks. Meanwhile, all the exemptions, deductions, exceptions and special provisions reduce the tax base, which means higher tax rates and smaller incentives for individuals and companies to produce income. And whether the tax breaks are set in fine print or spelled out in bold type, they generally favor the rich, making our tax system less progressive than is generally believed.

No tax system is perfect, but ours is so awful that fundamental reform is the only option. Fundamental reform is not just a necessity; it's also an opportunity to stop taxing income and start taxing consumption. My colleagues and I have been studying income and consumption taxation via computer simulations for some time now. We've found that switching from taxing wage and capital income to taxing consumption can significantly improve economic efficiency and growth. What's more, it can make our tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fairtax; kotlikoff; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 501-506 next last
To: camle

"what would the nrst do to offset this? all I can see is that it would be neuitral at best, harmful at it's most likely"

It would stop imbedding the cost of our tax system into our domestic production and would, instead, tax all items purchased for personal consumption here in the USA (including imports) equally. That means that no longer would our trading partners ship their VAT relieved goods here to compete with our tax laden goods. It would mean that we could export into their markets at a 20 - 25% reduction in price with profit margins comparable to what they are now. The demand for US goods would increase in many markets around the world, including our own.

What many Americans do not realize is that we currently have a tax system which creates a bias in favor of foreign producers at the expense of our own. This isn't some conspiracy; noone has deliberately designed it that way. However, with globalization sweeping the planet, we cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer.

There are other ways to approach this. VATs are typically border adjustable. However, VATs can be extremely complex and have high compliance costs as a result. Unlike the tax itself, compliance costs are not border adjustable. Also, no one has introduced a proposal for a VAT which would account for about 95% of all federal revenues. The FairTax is the best proposal introduced so far from the standpoint of international competition.


161 posted on 03/08/2005 11:32:15 AM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: camle

A used car bought from a dealer is a retail transaction and will be NRST'd. A used car bought from an individual will have to be registered and THEN they get you.


162 posted on 03/08/2005 11:33:18 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Consider a $10,000 purchase, taxed at 23%. The $30,000 earner pays 7.6% of their income in sales tax. The $100,000 earner pays 2.3%. Yell BS all you want, the numbers don't lie.

That is the appeal to the people with money who are arguing against you...If you are a business owner, just look at the things that would be exempt...The company car(s)...The (business) vacations, etc...

Let's face it...This regressive tax is good for some of the people...A progressive tax is good for the rest of the people...It's a matter of who can do a better con job on who...

163 posted on 03/08/2005 11:33:43 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

"Why would it? Because if I have $100,000, I can buy a $100,000 untaxed existing home, or I can buy a taxed new home and need an extra $23,000 in tax (or alternatively, I can buy a lot less house and pay the tax and house out of the $100,000)."

The 100K new home would need to be much bigger than the 100K used home in your example. The land has already been taxed, therefore if you assume paying tax on 100K new home and no tax on the land, the home must be bigger than the 100K used home plus land.


164 posted on 03/08/2005 11:34:15 AM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Those are all valid choices. But for the earner on the low-end of the income scale, its less likely to be a choice than a matter of what they can afford. That's where they get hit with reduced buying power under the NRST. Get back to a flat tax on income, and I'm happily on board.

The low-end will always have less buying power no matter what the plan is. In fact, under a flat tax, you will not be giving a rebate based on the poverty level, whereas under the Fair Tax bill, you will. Those that hover around the poverty level will pay virtually no taxes.

Please read:

Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America

Here is the whole Fair Tax FAQ:

Fair Tax FAQ
165 posted on 03/08/2005 11:36:01 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty ("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CSM

"..the worse case scenario that has been shown is that it will be equalized."

As far as I can tell this is true. If it's a wash, expect few to get excited about it, despite ridding ourselves of the IRS.


166 posted on 03/08/2005 11:36:31 AM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Principled
...the nrst that's in Congress now has a provision that allows spending up to the poverty level to be tax free for everyone who is a legal resident with a valid SSN... analgous to today's standard deduction... simply a refund of taxes... but the nrst doesn't make you wait for the refund, they give it to you in advance monthly - no more interest free loans to Uncle Sam.

Does anybody currently get a tax refund from the government when they buy groceries or a washing machine? A monthly rebate given in advance seems to imply the continued existence of an IRS bureaucracy that keeps track of how much income everybody makes. The rationale for the continuation of such an unnecessary and unwieldy system is cryptic to me.

Cordially,

167 posted on 03/08/2005 11:37:04 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: camle

I can just about garuntee that the price of US manufactured cars will decline by at least 20% after the removal of corporate and income taxes, and the cost of compliance. That price decline will happen almost immediately. If you can buy a new car today, you'll be able to buy a new car under the NRST.


168 posted on 03/08/2005 11:37:09 AM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to shift the tax burden to the working poor, I suppose, but they should at least have the fortitude to admit that's what they want.


169 posted on 03/08/2005 11:37:20 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Willie, You need to develop some new talking points. Your "truly despotic" line is a bit old.

Moreover, any thinking individual understands that the income tax system as enforced by the IRS, with it's lien and levy powers, represents an undeniable threat to private property ownership...the REAL land grab.

The FairTax would abolish the IRS and with it, the audit, collection, lien and levy functions.


170 posted on 03/08/2005 11:37:50 AM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1

the income tax began with a lot less than 100 pages. your proposal cannot but increase in complexity as it evolves. nothing is ever made simpler by government types. My proposal would fit on a post card. which is a simpler starting point?


171 posted on 03/08/2005 11:38:13 AM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Kerretarded; Wolfie; CSM; camle; All

Discussion with John Linder who introduced HR 25:

http://boortz.com/more/022505_power_lunch_audio.html


172 posted on 03/08/2005 11:39:04 AM PST by groanup (http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
expect few to get excited about it

LOL! Just look at this and previous threads on this topic to see how excited people get!

173 posted on 03/08/2005 11:39:11 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Ten grand for the land in either example, leaving me 90k for house in either example. If it's existing, I get 90k of house. If it's new, I have to spend 90k on house and tax, so I only get (about) $72,000 of house (with the other 18k going for tax).

In that situation, I want the existing home, because I get to spend the entire $90k on house, not just $72k. I get $18k more house.


174 posted on 03/08/2005 11:40:32 AM PST by Petronski (This is the Serengeti, heart of the Dark Continent, where Bar Codes roam free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess
The FairTax would abolish the IRS and with it, the audit, collection, lien and levy functions.

You aare either joking, or dreaming.

175 posted on 03/08/2005 11:40:35 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
No! If the "bottom-dwelling-drunk", legally has the money to buy a luxury car, he has every bit as much right to buy it as someone working 80 hours a week. That's a free market. The same market that makes possible the jobs that make and sell the luxury car.

You missed the point. You must read the post I was responding to.
176 posted on 03/08/2005 11:41:02 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty ("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Kerretarded

now wherever did I say that i supported the rights of "bottom dwelling drunks"?

your characterization of people who barely make ends meet is revealing. I spent many years barely making out and a new car was merely a dream that I had no reasonable expectation. but to price that dream an additional 20 - 30% higher means the difference between an attainable dream and an impossibility for a lot of people, including a lot of fine, sober folks, and a lot of people trying to put their lives together after an upheaval.


177 posted on 03/08/2005 11:41:56 AM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
What color is the sky in your world?

The water vapor in my sky absorbs a wavelength of about 475 nm that is scattered in every direction that my optical nerve interprets as blue.

Here's the point for those with less intellectual talent. If the government does not have the ability to take the money directly from our pockets (witholding taxes), then they have a lot less ability to get more out of us. If taxation were truly transparent (Fair Tax), then the power goes back to the people from whence the taxes come. Now, and this is the good part, if we can keep ALL our money and have a CHOICE on how much to send to the government, then the power resides with us on how much the government can spend. If you wish for government to have power over how much of your life is for the benifit of others try China.

178 posted on 03/08/2005 11:42:01 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

"That's where they get hit with reduced buying power under the NRST."

Lower income individuals don't experience reduced buying power under the FairTax. First, corporate income and payroll taxes are removed, as well as the staggering associated compliance costs. Elimination of these costs wilenable competiton to drive pre-tax prices down 20 - 25%. Although the tax is levied on top to bring prices back to about where they were (for US produced goods), the rebate offsets sales taxes up to the poverty level. Therefore, to the extent that US consumers choose to purchase US produced goods, they will experience a 20 - 25% INCREASE in purchasing power.

Of course, to the extent that they choose to purchase imports, they will pay more than they do now under the current system. That is the price we pay to eliminate the bias in our system in favor of foreign producers.


179 posted on 03/08/2005 11:42:16 AM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: David75

Add together all the federal and state personal income, payroll, excise and sales taxes, and you quickly reach effective wage tax rates of 50%

How would this change by replacing income and payroll taxes with another sales tax, since the FairTax is revenue neutral?

Because total consumption spending is a much broader base than the "taxable income" plus SS/Medicare wage taxbase.

Total taxable consumption includes everyone making a purchase, and not just those who exceed an arbitrary level of "exempted income" leaving out nearly 50% of the electorate with no income tax and even those who pay on no SS/Medicare payroll tax for earnings coming only from property and financial investments.

The NRST reaches out to any legitimate purchase of imports as well as domestic products. All legitimate purchases made by those in the cash underground economy, those involved in illegal activites, illegal aliens as well as visiting non-resident aliens, rich and welfare mother alike all participate in payment of the NRST where ever a legitimate retail sale takes place whether for new goods or for service. The NRST around 90% of GDP(the sum of all retail production.)

180 posted on 03/08/2005 11:42:16 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 501-506 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