Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax, a plan that has emerged as an alternative with a major grass-roots push.
Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government.
Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral. Further, Breaux said he thought exemptions that would be carved out to make the sales tax progressive would also complicate it.
Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.
Americans for Fair Taxation Executive Director Tom Wright emphasized that the plan emerged after "thorough academic research" and "thorough polling" The strong grass-roots push has resulted in some of the group's 600,000 members appearing at each of the panel's hearings and has inspired a large comment-writing campaign to the panel in support of the plan.
Sales tax advocates were among the 20 witnesses who gathered before the panel for a full day of testimony on tax reform proposals. Although the group has held several other hearings in Washington and around the country, the May 11 meeting was its first hearing on specific reform plans since Bush appointed the panel in January. The panel has been charged with identifying tax reform proposals that are progressive, encourage charitable giving and home purchases, and are revenue-neutral. The proposals are due by July 31.
Among the tax replacement and reform plans presented to the panel were the value added tax, consumption-based tax, and the flat tax, as well as proposals that would use the current income tax as the foundation.
Witnesses generally claimed that theirs was the fairest, simplest, most flexible, most transparent revenue-neutral proposal that would improve economic growth and savings while meeting the president's criteria of encouraging charitable giving and home buying. Witnesses presenting consumption-based plans praised their overhaul as taking millions of low-income taxpayers off the rolls, being easy to transition to on a worldwide basis, and including safeguards to prevent new loopholes that would result in increased complexity down the road.
Tax reform panel members, who agree the current tax system needs to be fixed, grilled witnesses without revealing whether they will ultimately endorse a consumption- or income-based tax or a different mixture of the two.
You think there's no such thing as tax exclusive rate, and you insist on using the tax exclusive rate. You think 100-22=88. Shall I continue?
How do you figure the "amount listed in the receipt for 'price inclusive of tax'"?
As a seller, rather easily actually, simply divide the amount I intend to retain for my business by (1-NRSTrate). The result is the NRST "price inclusive of tax".
As a purchaser wanting to check the amount of NRST listed, multiply the NRSTrate times the "price inclusive of tax."
No problem at all, unless you happen to be arithmetically challenged and don't know how to use a $2 pocket calculator.
I'm not very familiar with the complete tax picture in Europe...but I am lead to believe that they have some income taxes in addition to the VAT
They have about every tax you can imagine, and some no one in their right minds would imagine. Must be something in the air that does it to them, or maybe it is a genetic defect common to those genetically disposed to be European politicians.
In fact, the discussion was about ELIMINATING the rate, not decreasing it.Uh huh. OK. So eliminating is different than reducing it to 0%.
Yes, we haven't been discussing the Flat tax.
All those issues are relevant to the FT discussion. Crucial in fact.
Few of the FTers have demonstrated any grasp of microeconomic principles merely an overwhelming FAITH in the theories of the FT.
My points have not been the understanding of any particular school of economics but are accepted by ALL. They are not even controversial.
Any mathematical economics I have used have been High School level at best. Nothing that should confuse anyone with an eight grade education. Economics attempts to use the Scientific Method by proposing hypothesises, then testing them against the available data. It has more complications to deal with than physical science which makes its conclusions more dubious.
People don't like taxes. But that does not give them justification to ignore the conclusions of those who become experts in the field. Conventional wisdom generally has limited usefullness. Distorting my views has less if truth is the goal.
Economists agree on quite a lot even if you are unaware of it. The only pretenders to having all the answers are the FTers. The heretics raising questions or objections to their generally unsupported statements are merely without the Faith they demonstrate.
Try his 400% error on a problem that HE made up.
I haven't been in a classroom for thirty years. The Kennedy example is completely appropriate since it dealt with the problem you mentioned of extremely high rates. Just because you don't like all its implications doesn't mean it is invalid.
I am just as opposed to VAT as FT.
Then you are telling me that the IT in other countries offset any "disadvantage" of the IT here making the FT less of an advantage.
Yes, it is ... that's why it's called ELIMINATING rather than DECREASING.
Perhaps you should read my post again to see I used the term ELIMINATE.
Decrease generally means to reduce but implies something is still there - i.e., is not eliminated. If you like "decrease", though, help yusseff.
The ONLY reason to use an inclusive rate is to hide the size of the exclusive rate. No one would propose such a nightmarish method otherwise.
Multiplication is easier than division for the simple fact that the latter uses the former.
New car 50 Gs including tax. What is the tax? 50000/1.23=40650.41, 50000-40650.41= 9349.59.
But the post FairTax final price of big ticket items is most likely to be the same, or nearly the same as pre-FairTax final price because of the levels of production and opportunity to embed tax cost. Once removed, the out the door price should be nearly the same.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the out the door price is higher (which I don't), the cost to finance should be lower unter the FairTax as well. Please see: http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/interestrates.pdf
That's like saying it's completely appropriate since it uses the word "tax".
It isn't of course, because we were specifically talking about increasing the rate, not high rates.
BTW I don't believe you about the classroom.
Exports do not depreciate the currency. Exports strengthen the currency.
LOL, the effect of a change in competitiveness of one's exports in foreing markets, affects currency exchange rates as described.
The exports are already going on if you haven't noticed. The point under discussion is what happens when an initial competitive advantage is exploited due to a change in tax systems, and what the response in currency markets and trade balances are as the evolve in time.
Exports do not depreciate the currency. Exports strengthen the currency.
Then what were you bring up payroll taxes for, in a discussion of international trade balances Justshutup: "I agree that sales taxes do not affect exports I was merely referring to the payroll taxes."
Being a reserve currency causes the dollar to be over-valued.
Lot of things affect the value of the dollar, being a reserve currency is just one. Competititive position in trade relations with other nations is another.
WTO rules would not allow the US to claim a trade advantage for removing CNIT. I never said the rules would prevent the US from removing it.
Meaningless statement, WTO rules do not govern wether or not remove CNIT. They only govern whether or not trying to rebate it at the border for our exports in the same manner that VAT countries rebate their VATs at there borders is seen as a an illegal trade subsidy to US manufacturers that importer do not recieve equally or not.
Repealing corporate taxes and replacing them with a totally border neutral tax that treats domestic and foreign goods equally is at the foundation of GATT/WTO requirements. Doing so is totally within the constraints of those agreements, and merely assures a level trading field applied by the same rules that allow a VAT to be rebated at borders.
Nor would I argue that sales taxes are the equivalent to a tariff.
That's great because no one has suggested that yet. Especially seeing as domestic manufacture is treated exactly the same as foreign manufacture under a retail sales tax.
Since I (and other economists) do not believe income taxes are worked into prices I do not accept that conclusion.
I certainly agree that people do not like taxes - so what?? Most of them don't like death either. Neither point is germane.
By asking about your use of FT for FairTax I wanted to be sure that's your intended subject since there is a soft-shoe artist on these threads who WAS discussing the flat tax (or the VAT if it became more convenient in his use as an attacking tool). Nothing implied - merely a clarification.
Some of the points you offer may indeed be accepted by some economists but I doubt the universality you proclaim as well as the non-controversial nature of some of them. But that's not what the thread is about (your personal economic theories - or lack of them) nor do I see any real point in continually citing economists holding contrary ideas to yours in view of your inflated opinion of your economic knowledge.
Suffice it to say that the FairTax has been studied and developed by numerous economists and - while you obviously choose to demur and take the SQL path - at least 75 of them joined in a letter endorsing the FairTax to the House, Senate, Tax Reform Panel, and the President. Of course, those 75 are probably not as smart as you ... and I don't pretend to be since I'm only a plain country boy.
Few of the FTers have demonstrated any grasp of microeconomic principles merely an overwhelming FAITH in the theories of the FT.The bottom line, in my mind, is that there is no way prices can drop the amount advertised (20-30%) by the FairTax supporter without nominal wages dropping. I have not seen any economist disagree with this including the authors of the FairTax. After everything works out, our cumulative purchasing power will not change that much.
Statement of Laurence J. Kotlikoff,
Professor of Economics, Boston University, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means - Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform
April 11, 2000This sentence and the one preceding it assume the price level will rise with the adoption of the Fair Tax. If the Federal Reserve used its monetary policy to maintain the consumer price level, the adoption of the Fair Tax would entail a decline in the level of producer prices and, thus, the nominal wages and capital income received by productive factors.
Response to William Gale
by Dan Mastromarco and David Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Memorandum, March 16, 1998Federal income and payroll taxes either are or are not incorporated into the prices of goods and services. If they are embedded in prices, their removal will reduce prices. If they are not, then their removal will not reduce prices but instead returns to labor and capital will go up. If returns to labor go up, people will see their after-tax wages increase and asset values will increase since the present discounted value of the new, higher returns will be higher.
The replacement sales tax could be incident on the factors of production or it could be incident on consumers through higher prices. It cannot be both. If it is incident on the factors of production, then wages and the return to capital will fall but sales tax inclusive prices will not be any higher, on average, than they are today. If the sales tax is fully incident on consumers, then prices will increase by the amount of the sales tax but returns to labor and capital will be higher.
Criticism of the Sales Tax for Residential Real Estate Isn't Built on a Solid Foundation
by Dan R. Mastromarco and David R. Burton
[authors of the FairTax]
Tax Notes, June 29, 1998, p. 1779Footnote #13: The degree to which after-tax wages will increase is a function of the incidence of both the sales tax and the repealed taxes. If the income tax and payroll taxes are incident on income recipients and the sales tax is incident on consumers, then after-tax wages and returns will go up quite considerably as will tax inclusive prices. If the sales tax is incident on the factors of production, then after-tax wages and the after-tax return to capital will not go up to any considerable degree (at first) but producer prices will fall and retail prices, even including the sales tax, will remain roughly comparable. The real purchasing power of wages will undoubtedly increase considerably over time because of a larger capital stock (increasing productivity), microeconomic efficiencies caused by a more efficient allocation of scarce resources, and higher productivity from lower compliance costs.
The Price Level
Switching to an indirect tax such as a valued-added tax (VAT) or national sales tax will probably cause a one-time jump in the price level, with no permanent change in the inflation rate. By contrast, any consumption-based tax that levies taxes directly on households will probably have little or no effect on the price level.
A VAT or sales tax is likely to boost the price level because each one collects the tax on labor income from the firm or retailer. That treatment represents a change from the current income tax system, which collects tax on labor income directly from the worker. Because the cost of labor to the firm would include the new tax, real compensation paid to workers would initially have to fall to match the value of their so-called "marginal product" and keep them fully employed.
Real compensation can fall in two ways: nominal compensation can drop or the price level can rise. What happens will ultimately depend on the Federal Reserve. If it fixes the price level, nominal compensation will have to fall--an event that workers might accept because they would no longer have to pay income tax and hence would take home about the same pay as now. Most analysts note, however, that workers have resisted cuts in nominal compensation in the past. Those analysts expect that firms fearing morale problems or facing union contracts will hesitate to make such cuts. In that case, nominal compensation may fall slowly to its new level, leading to higher unemployment rates in the interim. To prevent that outcome, the Federal Reserve is expected to allow the price level to rise. For example, a VAT or sales tax of 10 percent would lead to a one-time jump of 10 percent in the price of consumer products.
Further price increases may ensue if compensation is indexed to inflation. In that case, the price rise will cause a corresponding rise in compensation, and real compensation will not drop enough to maintain full employment, requiring a further price rise--that is, a wage-price spiral. That problem occurred in the United Kingdom when it adopted a VAT in 1979, although the extent of indexing there was greater than it is in the United States.
Source: U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1997). The Economic Effects of Comprehensive Tax Reform. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Setting aside for a moment temporary inflexibilites in contracts for wages, bonds, and so forth (we address these later), whether ther overall level of prices changes or not does not materially affect this story.16 Even if prices do not rise at all, moving to a consumption tax would cause the purchasing power of both wages and existing wealth to decline by an average of 20 percent relative to a situation with no taxes. Nominal wages would be forced down because firms would be earning 20 percent less, after taxes, from the output produced by workers. The nominal value of existing capital assets - in the form of, for example, share prices - which constitute much of old wealth, would also decline because the output they produce provides 20 percent less in after-tax revenues.
- Whether in fact consumer prices would rise in the event of tax reform depends on the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve Board.
Source: Slemrod, Joel and Jon Bakija, Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Great Debate over Tax Reform, MIT Press: Cambridge, 2004.
Transition Costs and Macroeconomic Adjustments
One of the most difficult issues to address in considering a shift to consumption taxes is the transition from the current system to the new tax regime.5 While all shifts to a consumption tax cause some common transitional disturbances and windfall gains and losses, the most serious problems arise from a shift to a national retail sales tax or to a value added tax. In these cases, a tax formerly largely collected from individuals is now collected at the firm level -- either from retailers on total sales or from both final and intermediate producers' value added. Flat taxes avoid this problem but can result in confiscatory taxes on existing assets.
Price Accommodation and Short-run Contractions Under a Retail Sales Tax or VAT
Holding prices fixed, these firms would need to reduce payments to workers to retain profit levels. In fact, many firms would not have enough of a profit margin to pay the tax without something else -- either prices or wages -- adjusting. Consider, for example, a grocery retailer that may have a 1% or 2% profit margin now owing a tax equal to 20% of receipts. This firm simply does not have the cash to pay the tax. If it is difficult to lower wages (and presumably it would be), a significant one-time price inflation, to allow these costs to be passed forward in prices instead, would be required to avoid a potentially serious economic contraction. Note that the price increase, were it possible to implement correctly and precisely, would solve the transition problem because although prices would rise, individuals would have more income to purchase the higher priced goods -- and demand would not fall. It is difficult, however, for the monetary authorities to engineer such a large price change. Moreover, even with the monetary expansion in place to do so, the imposition of such a tax would be disruptive if firms are reluctant to immediately raise prices, again leading to an economic contraction. That is, firms could contract their business, or even close down, until output had contracted enough to raise prices.
These disruptions are not minor in nature -- imagine the difficulties of engineering and absorbing a one-time price increase that is likely to be close to 20% (the level, approximately, that might realistically be needed to replace the income tax).6 Even if such an inflation could be managed, there are always concerns that any large inflation could create inflationary expectations -- it's hard to manage a single one-year price increase. In fact, 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.
- See CRS Report 98-901, Short-Run Macroeconomic Effects of Fundamental Tax Reform, by Jane G. Gravelle and G. Thomas Woodward for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
- The rate would depend on whether and the extent of any family exemption. A 20% tax exclusive rate would correspond to a tax inclusive rate between 16% and 17%.
- 7 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Symposium Papers, committee print, 105th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 20, 1997, JCS-21-97 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 24.
Source: CRS Report for Congress: The Flat Tax, Value-Added Tax, and National Retail Sales Tax: Overview of the Issues. Esenwein, Gregg A. and Jane Gravelle.
Prices.
Prices for consumer goods and services quickly rise by the amount of the tax, and then some. The portion of the price increase in excess of the tax is due in part to the higher cost of imports (from the weaker dollar) coupled with the ability of some domestic producers of competing goods to hike their price to that of imports. Consumer prices similarly rise 25 percent -- roughly the nominal rate of sales tax, unadjusted for any exemptions or transition rules -- by 2002 and gradually drop from that peak to a level that remains about 18 percent above the pre-change baseline.
Examined on a year-over-year basis, these price increases generally amount to a large, one-time hike in prices as the NRST is imposed, with some moderation of this increase in the longer run. Due to a weaker dollar, merchandise import prices increase by nearly 4 percent shortly after the NRST is imposed and are 6.5 percent over baseline levels in 2010. Merchandise export prices are also above baseline levels. In 2001 and 2002 they are nearly 3 percent above the baseline. However, due to lower interest rates, which reduce business costs, export prices are only slightly greater than baseline levels for most of the remainder of the forecast period. The overall impact on prices is measured by the change in the GDP deflator, which initially rises 20 percent above the baseline price level before settling back to a 13 percent price rise relative to the baseline.
The notion espoused by some that pre-tax prices would drop some 20-30 percent under a NRST (so that after-tax prices would not rise and may even decline) is a peculiar one. This could only happen if all of the personal income tax, the corporation income tax and payroll taxes are currently embodied in retail prices. Tax incidence -- that is, who actually bears the ultimate tax burden -- is an elusive question that has been the focus of many economic papers, because the answer is not clear. However, the general consensus among economists is that perhaps a portion of the corporate income tax may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but that the majority is ultimately paid by corporate owners in the form of lower after-tax profits and by employees in the form of lower compensation. Most economists concede that personal income taxes and payroll taxes are ultimately borne by labor and are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Source: Statement of John G. Wilkins, Managing Director, Barcroft Consulting Group, on behalf of National Retail Federation. Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform. April 11, 2000.
Transitional Issues in Tax Reform
Price Level Effects
Because the flat tax is similar in structure to the existing income tax system, its implementation would have relatively little effect on the absolute price level. Both before- and after-tax wages would be roughly similar before and after reform, so that nominal prices remain roughly constant.
In contrast, the effect of implementing an NRST on the absolute price level is less certain. One possibility is that the tax could be fully shifted forward in the form of higher prices for consumption goods, with no change in the price of investment goods, which are untaxed under the NRST. At the other end of the spectrum of possible responses, nominal prices could remain constant. Under this scenario, before-tax real wages would have to fall roughly to the level of prereform after-tax real wages in response to the elimination of the income tax. Intermediate responses between the "full price adjustment" and "no price adjustment" scenarios are of course also possible.
Choosing between these various scenarios requires making necessarily speculative assumptions about the response of the monetary authorities to the imposition of the NRST. However, most analysts assume that the monetary response would be sufficiently accommodating that the full price adjustment scenario would obtain.
The primary rationale underlying this assumption is the view that the downward flexibility of nominal wages is quite limited, in part because most wage contracts and agreements are specified in nominal terms. Thus, a tax reform that required wage reductions to reach a new equilibrium would be quite costly as these wage reductions would initially be distributed unevenly across industries. This in turn might result in considerable unemployment in sectors characterized by rigid wages, as well as misallocations of labor, at least in the short run. Proponents of the full price adjustment view assume that monetary policy would be expansionary to avoid these costs.
Most observers fall into the full price adjustment camp. For example, McLure (1996, p. 23) concludes that it would be "hard to imagine the monetary authorities not accommodating such an increase in prices." Gravelle (1995, p. 59) argues that full price adjustment is likely because a "national sales tax would tend to produce an economic contraction if no price accommodation is made." In its analysis of the distributional implications of implementing consumption taxes, the Joint Committee of Taxation (1993, p. 59) concludes that, "Unless there are convincing reasons to assume otherwise, the JCT staff assumes the Federal Reserve will accommodate the policy change and allow prices to rise." Finally, Bradford (1996a, p. 135), in discussing the same issue in the context of a value-added tax, observes that, "It is commonly believed that introducing a value-added tax of the consumption type will bring with it a monetary policy adjustment that would result in a one-time increase in the price level ;and no change in payments to workers in nominal terms."
Nevertheless, opinion on this issue is certainly no unanimous. For example, the alternative assumption [that wages will fall] is implicitly made by Jorgenson and Wilcoxen, who argue that implementing a national sales tax would reduce producer prices on average by 25 percent. Auerbach (1996) takes a compromise position by assuming partial price adjustment. In addition, European experience with the introduction of the VAT is mixed, generally suggesting partial price adjustment. On the other hand, Besley and Rosen (1999) find full (or even more than 100 percent) forward shifting of state sales taxes in the United States.
Source: Zodrow, George R. (2002). "Transitional Issues in Tax Reform." In United States Tax Reform in the 21st Century, George Zodrow and Peter Mieszkowski, Editors. Cambridge University Press.
Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms
Does it matter how the central bank responds when the tax system is reformed? Some economists would argue that in a very general sense it does not. Many would argue that the central bank's response would have little long-run effect, because what really matters is the productive capacity of the economy and because there could be no money illusion in the long run.
And, in the short run, the standard relation between prices and money makes it clear that, under limiting assumptions, the central bank need not change monetary policy. Consider the transition from our present tax system to a consumption tax. Ignoring any incentive effects caused by the tax reform, velocity and output are unchanged. With a revenue-neutral tax reform, aggregate after-tax income is unchanged, so there need be no demand-driven effects on consumer prices. Under these conditions, v, y, and q remain unchanged as a result of the tax reform, and thus maintenance of the status quo implies that the central bank need not change its policy. Assuming that output is constant, the central bank could eliminate any transitory price changes in the long run by leaving monetary policy unchanged.
But things may not be that simple. The implied changes to wages and producer prices require a degree of flexibility in the economy that many might find unlikely. Specifically, for the consumer price to stay constant, the producer price must fall by the amount of the tax. And because a drop in the producer price means that the business revenue produced by hiring another worker drops, the before-tax wage must drop by a corresponding amount. Many have argued that such price and wage changes are implausible and that the central bank should "accommodate" a transitory change in the consumer price level by adjusting monetary policy so that it is consistent with constant producer prices and wages.
Source: Bull, Nicholas, and Lawrence B. Lindsey. 1996. "Monetary Implications of Tax Reforms." National Tax Journal 49.3 (September): 359-79.
The Price Level
When Britain adopted consumption taxation in 1979, the price level rose by the amount of the new tax. This jump in prices caused substantial disruption in the economy, partly because it stimulated further rounds of wage and price increases through indexation formulas that failed to exclude consumption taxes from the measured cost of living. Standard macroeconomic analysis suggests that the underlying cause of such a price effect is the contractual determination of wages in money terms. Under an income tax, the wage is set in pretax terms. Workers finance consumption out of what remains of their wages after paying taxes. Under a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT), the wage is set on an after-tax basis. Workers use their entire wages for consumption and pay their consumption taxes as they consume. When an income tax is replaced by a sales tax or VAT, the wage bargain should be revised to lower the purchasing power of wages or by raising the prices of consumption goods. As a practical matter, the second always occurs.
One of the advantages of a flat tax or a personal cash-flow consumption tax is that both leave the wage bargain in pretax form. There is no disruptive jump in the price level. Unlike other effects I have discussed, the increase in the price level is not intrinsic to a consumption tax, but is the result of a particular choice about how to administer the tax.
Source: Potential Disruption from the Move to a Consumption Tax, by Robert E. Hall. The American Economic Review.
You're babbling again and embarrassing your partners in crime
Your denseness is showing.
Speaking of "embarrassing your parnters in crime" I still have some choice AG posts proving his fraud I could repost for you clowns.
Interesting spin - but no.
The IT in other countries when viewed against our exports under the border-adjustable FairTax give our exports more of an advantage that they now have under the IT.
The point is that the existence of the highest rates seemed to have an effect on prices contrary to your theory of the effects of income taxes. I used it to show that your theory is wrong and not consistent with the data.
Why would I lie about not being in the classroom it is nothing to be ashamed of since I respect education and educated people? But I have been a financial analyst for over 25 years not that it is any of your business. I do have degrees in Economics but have not taught.
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.