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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 501-506 next last
To: camle

"you cannot pass a law that changes the constitution. that requires an ammendment."

True, but you can put language in the passed law that it will not take effect until the amendment is abolished.


321 posted on 03/08/2005 12:59:36 PM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

The rest of the article is posted at # 12. Only an excerpt is permitted at the beginning.


322 posted on 03/08/2005 1:03:40 PM PST by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

hmmmmmm
Final Authority
Your Nightmare
Always Right

I wonder why so many of the guardians of the status quo have to display their egos so brazenly?

Better get with the program, Louie and Willie. LOL


323 posted on 03/08/2005 1:10:27 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1; expatpat
OK. Let's look at the numbers and see if you can do basic addition and subtraction. For 2004 the FairTax base plus exports (I'm limiting it to that so that there is no squawking from the FairTaxers) was $11,582 billion. That is the total "price" of goods claimed to dropping after the FairTax is passed. The corporate income tax collected in 2004 was $190 billion, or 1.64% of "prices." The employer share of payroll taxes was $383 billion, or 3.31% of "prices." That's a total of 4.95%. Even if all of these taxes were incident on consumers (and virtually every economist believes they are not) that is no where near a 20-35% price drop.

Even if you add a ridiculous $200 billion in compliance costs you still are less than 7% of prices. You are $1.9 trillion away from enough costs to achieve a 23% price drop! The numbers don't add up.

The only way pre-tax prices can drop significantly with the FairTax is if nominal wages are reduced!


324 posted on 03/08/2005 1:10:43 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: camle

could you poiont out where in the constitution or federaslist papers the founders favored taxes on consumption? I know they didn't like income taxes, but...

Thank You for your kind words.....and I would be happy to quote and cite the exact passage. From Federalist Paper No. 21, http://federalistpatriot.us/fedpapers/fed_21.html

"...It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large."


325 posted on 03/08/2005 1:12:02 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: camle

SOMEBODY has to collect, track, and disburse to the government the funds gathered.

Yep, called your state, the same folks collecting state retail sales taxes.

You really should read the legislation:

 

H.R.25

Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:


 

`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION

  • `SEC. 401 AUTHORITY FOR STATES TO COLLECT TAX
  • `SEC. 402. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR STATES.
  • `SEC. 403. FEDERAL-STATE TAX CONFERENCES.
  • `SEC. 404. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IN CERTAIN STATES.
  • `SEC. 405. INTERSTATE ALLOCATION AND DESTINATION DETERMINATION.
  • `SEC. 406. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
  • `SEC. 407. JURISDICTION.

 

House Ways & Means archives 106th Congress:

Statement of Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller,
Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts,
on behalf of Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander,
Texas State Comptroller of Public Accounts

Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform

April 11, 2000

My name is Billy Hamilton, and I am the Deputy Comptroller for the State of Texas. Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, was delighted to receive an invitation to testify before this committee regarding the Fundamental Tax Reform measures under consideration today. Unfortunately, Comptroller Rylander's schedule did not permit her attendance, and she has asked me to testify here on her behalf.

My comments today are directed only to the feasibility of state administration of the Fair Tax proposed by H.R. 2525. I do not intend to comment on the economics or any other aspects of the proposal.

The Texas Comptroller's office has administered a sales and use tax since the 1960's, and I have been involved with administration of the tax since 1982. Last year, the Texas Comptroller collected $13 billion in sales tax revenue from more than 600,000 businesses. I offer my own experience with sales tax administration, as well as the size of Texas' sales tax program, as the basis of my qualification to speak to you about the administerability of H.R. 2525.

As you know, H.R. 2525 would permit states to collect and administer the Fair Tax on behalf of the federal government. In my opinion, Texas would be well-equipped to administer the Fair Tax based on our experience in administering our own sales tax. Even though the base, rate and other characteristics of the Fair Tax are significantly different from the Texas sales tax, it would be feasible for our office to collect the Fair Tax by expanding and enhancing the systems we currently have in place. For example, we would:

· Expand our current system for registering Texas retailers to include registration of sellers under the Fair Tax (615,000 businesses are currently registered as sellers in Texas; under the Fair Tax, 1.5 million Texas businesses would have to be registered);

· Expand our taxpayer assistance efforts to respond to a larger volume of telephone, letter and e-mail inquiries from sellers who collect the Fair Tax and individuals who pay it;

· Expand our Revenue Processing Division to process more returns and tax payments on a more frequent basis and to remit tax collections to the federal government on an almost-daily basis;

· Expand our current audit team and train all auditors to examine businesses for both the Fair Tax and the Texas sales tax; and

· Expand our information technology systems to collect and maintain the computerized records critical to effective administration of a consumption tax like the Fair Tax.

The expansion of our systems to administer the Fair Tax, in the manner I've just described, would be sizable. Under the Fair Tax, we would serve approximately 900,000 more filers than we do currently. We estimate that serving that many additional taxpayers would require 1,100 to 1,600 more full-time employees. The Texas Comptroller currently employs about 2,700 people on a full-time basis.

In spite of this large expansion, the compensation for collecting the Fair Tax that would be provided to states under H.R. 2525 would likely cover our projected costs. As a first approximation, we estimate that the cost to the Texas Comptroller's office for collecting the Fair Tax at full implementation would be $100 to $150 million per year. I emphasize, however, that there would be significant costs to begin collection, including the cost of facilities to house the additional processing facilities, the capital costs of information technology and revenue processing equipment, and the costs of notifying, registering and educating taxpayers on the new tax.

In closing, I believe that if the Fair Tax is to become a reality, the U.S. government would be well-served to make use of the existing expertise of the states. Many states have administered consumption taxes since the 1930s and have developed particular capabilities in this area. We also have extensive experience in dealing with the affected businesses. As long as the administrative fee paid to the state is adequate in relation to the costs of collection, I see no reason that the State of Texas could not effectively administer the Fair Tax.


326 posted on 03/08/2005 1:13:17 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

"The government will never abandon the income tax because the liberals won't let it happen because how else would one tax an American living on foreign soil, or tax old wealth (death taxes) or tax so-called unearned income, or tax windfalls like a signing bonus or the like?"

That isn't what the FairTax is about, so that is a strawman argument.

Here is what Herman Cain had to say about the possibility of combining a sales tax with an income tax.

Here it is in Real Video format: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/video/050304-foxnews.ram

And the Windows Media version: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/video/050304-foxnews.wmv


327 posted on 03/08/2005 1:14:33 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

My point is why futz with all of this stuff, and not support a Flat Tax on income instead?

The income tax was flat to begin with. And why should I or anyone want to report my family financial condition to government all the time, much less have to prove, it under threat of law, to their satisfaction when they disagree with my assessment?

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

 

"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."
---Alan Keyes 1999

328 posted on 03/08/2005 1:20:04 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: camle

"try me. when a company's board is charged with maximizing profits (to be paid as dividends, for example) and they fail to do so, they can (and often are) sucessfully sued. There is nothing around that I have heard of that obligates a company to pass along any windlfall that it takes in. if they suddenly find their profit margin up by 20-30% they wold be financially misfeasant to give that money away unless to do so is the only way to retain market share."

Aren't you the one who questioned my knowledge of economics? I will say this as diplomatically as I can. Please pick up an economics textbook and refresh yourself on the elasticity of demand. I think that what you will find is that price maximization and profit maximization are NOT the same. Why? The answer is contained in your last sentence above: "unless to do so is the only way to retain market share."


329 posted on 03/08/2005 1:20:21 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
"I think he's paid to."
Think whatever you like. You certainly like to jump to conclusions, huh, YN?
You're not paid by the Americans for Fair Taxation?
330 posted on 03/08/2005 1:21:05 PM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Fan_Of_Ingraham; n-tres-ted
Could you post the entire article please?

They can't...see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts Keeps Jim out of court.

331 posted on 03/08/2005 1:28:25 PM PST by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: camle
he is, however not talking about a sales tax, more of an excise tax.

Sorry, but that is the equivalent of saying, "he is talking about Red Delicious, not Apples"...

332 posted on 03/08/2005 1:28:25 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Freedom. Brought to you by the grace of God and the Red, White and Blue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: camle

"how many shopkeepers have you surveyed to discover that this new method will be easy to implement?"

I don't need to survey shopkeepers, I spent quite a few years in financial management with small to medium sized companies.


333 posted on 03/08/2005 1:29:11 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: camle

you see? ,my version of the Flat Tax treats ALL income as income. ALL income is taxed regardless of source. whether i's capital gains, returns on investments, wages, whatever.

Where's your bill, and how does it protect my property that I put into my business and keep the government from taxing it as income when it is returned to me out of my sales revenues or as capital return from monies or value loaned or invested.

"whatever" is not a definition that is usable to separate income and profit from capital or wealth invested.

By what authority do you claim a right for government to demand that I testify against myself or gives government the right to demand my production of and to search my personal financial records and effects for evidence against me without a warrant and probable cause to do so?

Sorry, no matter how you swing it any income tax is a tool of of the totalitarian, and not suitible for any nation that claims to be free.

 

I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them.

Alan Keyes 1999


334 posted on 03/08/2005 1:33:09 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Will result in the deepest economic depression that this country has ever seen. An NST will make the 1930's seem like the .com '90's.

It will be interesting to see what happens when every business or individual that rents gets socked with a 30% increase in their rent due. Overnight.

335 posted on 03/08/2005 1:36:46 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: camle
no corporation faced with a 20-30 percent windfall is going to ignore it's fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders and pass that blindly on the consumers.

Oh no? John Linder already has corporations who have signed agreements that they will lower consumer prices by any amount they are not forced to pay in income taxes. He is working with Wal Mart now. See post #172.

336 posted on 03/08/2005 1:38:50 PM PST by groanup (http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Oh no? John Linder already has corporations who have signed agreements that they will lower consumer prices by any amount they are not forced to pay in income taxes. He is working with Wal Mart now. See post #172.

Good goooooolly! In Wal-Mart's case that would be about 3%. Whoop-de-doo!

337 posted on 03/08/2005 1:48:27 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: camle; Conservative Goddess

could you poiont out where in the constitution or federaslist papers the founders favored taxes on consumption?

Constitution for the United States of America:

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

EXCISES.
This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

"COMMERCE, trade, contracts
.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

Federalist #12:

Federalist #21:

Federalist #34:

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"


338 posted on 03/08/2005 1:49:46 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

No doubt. We do.

I meant the rest of the country, who would have to become equally excited for anything to be done.


339 posted on 03/08/2005 2:28:08 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: camle
"ewould be preferrable th thier knowing what you buy and when you buy it."

The State of Missouri and every other state I have been in collects sales taxes from purchases but the purchaser is anonymous. The retailer collects the tax. Think McDonalds takes your name and number every time you buy a BigMac?

340 posted on 03/08/2005 2:30:44 PM PST by SCALEMAN (Super Cards/Rams Fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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