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.
[I think you're looking at it from the other side of the river than I am.
My view is that there is a basic level of spending required to sustain living that shouldn't be taxed.]
I see your argument. I guess I do stand on the other side of that particular river. I think everyone who is able bodied should contribute to the common good. I could be wrong, but I don't think the fuedal lord allowed the farmer to set aside what he needed for his family and only took his share of what was left. Even if a harvest was poor, the lord still took his percentage of the total. So that may not be as good an analogy as you intended. The lord's costs to provide protection did not change, and to allow his tenants to work no harder than necessary to provide for their own needs would have been a breach of the contract -- because without revenue the lord would no longer be able to provide the protection. A tenant under-producing time after time would have had his land taken away and given to someone more productive.
I think it is a psychological burden to people to have to admit they pay no taxes. Like they aren't carrying their weight when it comes to funding the common requirements of society. I don't think anybody would be proud to say "I paid $2,000 in taxes last year. But, the government check covered all those taxes. Didn't really cost me a dime. National defense ? I don't pay for any of that. Judicial system ? Nope, not that either."
Pigdog, another thought on extracting money from people to help others.
Would it be OK if you were mugged as long as the mugger said a portion was going to the needy ?
I figure last year I paid some $65K in taxes. More than half of what I earned. I look at society as something that is supposed to benefit everyone equally, so I mentally divide the cost of Federal, State, and Local government by the citizens. That sort of calculation shows my "fair share" of those costs would be around $11K.
That means I gave $54K to help the needy last year. Except actually it was extracted under threat of imprisonment.
That doesn't leave me in a very charitable mood for the charities I actually choose to give to. Of course, I still do, but nothing like I could if I hadn't been robbed at every turn. You'd probably call me greedy.
Under the FairTax, even at 23% FED and 7% CA, I'd pay $20K if I didn't increase my spending. I'd barely even quibble about the extra $9K. I'd feel a lot more charitable -- especially since every purchase or giving decision was my choice. At 14.5% FED and 5.5% CA, I'd pay $15K and have no complaints at all. (All of these numbers include $3.5K other local taxes.)
I have no idea where I picked up "$59K" for $63K". Despite the numbers the comments I offered still apply since I took your comments about the "loser" point as you mention them in this post. I merely wasn't sure that's what you meant.
If you read my comments again on the "loser" point, you should see that I was saying that a person with (I'll use the other number since I can't seem to remember 63) $175K has so much more dispossable income that it is most likely he would invest a portion of it and make himself even better off.
Regardless of the actual numbers of the 2 "loser" illustrations, here are the pertinent comments I made:
You should read the FairTax bill to see that it calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment AND eliminates the IRS (it defunds it as well as legislating it out of existence) and it also requires the destruction of the income tax records.
The FairTax is a tax bill, not a constitutional amendment bill. The requirements of the two are quite different. Also the 16th cannot be repealed without having a functioning tax law in place or ther would be no funds to run the govenment (maybe not a bad idea:-)).
Once the FairTax is law the repeal effort can really begin to move. As a matter of fact, Congress could RIGHT NOW vote a sales tax in addition to an income tax ... SHH! - don't tell them. The FairTaxx would actually work to protect us from having both at once.
Read the bill and you'll see.
I'll put you in Column B. Thanks.
[If you read my comments again on the "loser" point, you should see that I was saying that a person with (I'll use the other number since I can't seem to remember 63) $175K has so much more dispossable income that it is most likely he would invest a portion of it and make himself even better off.]
Doesn't the above hold true even more so without the Prebate ? Wouldn't he have even more disposable income to invest and make himself even better off ?
You see, the justification for social spending and the higher taxes it requires is often "he's got so much money he won't even notice it." This is the divide and conquer tax strategy -- identify some group that is small enough its votes can't protect it, then whammo ! you've got yourself some more revenue to play with. It is largely how we got into the mess we are in now. Of course the other way is to lobby until you mysteriously are no longer part of the tax base.
[Since these spenders are both gaining greatly in purchasing power with the FairTax it is hardly reasonable to describe them as "losing" at the sums you mention even though they would be able to purchase slightly less due to the prebate. Try to recognize where they would probably have been with the presennt system, for example.]
Oh, come on now ... that's like saying a man should be happy he's only being beaten once a day instead of twice. Everything is relative, when you put it that way ;=)
[I'm not so sure they even represent the view of many (if not most) of their members since retailers]
What would you say is the root of their opposition, then ?
BTW, I could have sworn I came across something somewhere saying that Wal-Mart was on record as promising to drop their prices 20% the first day the FairTax came into effect. I haven't been able to find a Wal-Mart endorsement when I've gone looking, however. If anybody has a link, I'd appreciate it.
[Once in hand it is their money to spend (or not) - and indeed it is - but while having such a small amount each small tax amount they pay will be severely noticed.]
Yes, I understand once the money is in hand and they can choose what to spend it on and see the tax, there will be a psychological effect. I just worry about control. If somebody decides their "necessities of life" are bread, water, and lap-dances, the morality police might pop up and talk people into that debit card that isn't valid for lap-dances. (:=) Keeping the Prebate a fungible device may not be as easy as we'd hope.
As I've said, I think the Prebate's main purpose may be to gain support amongst people more liberal than I. But I don't think it is a slam-dunk to think it gains more support than a lower rate would. I think more people would be sold at 15%. Without Prebate and Windfall, 15% is slightly better than revenue-neutral.
From what I've seen, most opponents are of two camps: 1) Those that think 23% will never raise the needed revenue, and 2) Those that think 23% is already too high to be enforceable and not encourage rampant evasion.
Numbers may eventually convince the first group, and a lower rate is the only way to get the second group to even listen.
I guess I wasn't clear that I was saying that, yes, with a lower or no prebate, the "loser" taxpayers would have more money. Certainly that's true. The other side of the coin is that those on the low end of the economic ladder would also have more since after all they must pay the tax rate also and are helped (as you point out) even with no prebate.
If you look through a bit of a different lens, in fact, it may be that those on the low income end might feel exactly the same way about those on the "loser" end (the higher end of the ladder) much as you do - but in reverse - since they might very well object to seeing their tax money go to help the higher end of the ladder - it cuts both ways; and in pretty much the same fashion. As I have said, though, I think the prebate is an idea to make the FairTax a progressive (or, in my view, a proportional) tax system in order to attract support.
But there really is no "divide and conquer" involved. No group is singled out for special treatment. All get the prebate (unless they opt not to) and all pay taxes at the same rate. That's not at all like the present tax system - as I'm sure you know having had so much expensive fun with it:-).
I rally can't equate the FairTax idea where each taxpayer is treated the same with respect to the prebate as well as the tax rate paid as "... being beaten once a day instead of twice ...". To me it is more like not being beaten at all when one considers all the beneficial effects. And keep in mind those at the lower part of the ladder may have much the same feeling as you and, if that is widespread enough, putting pressure on Congress for change would be in order (i.e., a lowering of the tax rate, reducing or eliminating the prebate, or both).
I believe the root of the NRF opposition is simply that of losing their political clout along the Boulevards of the Beltway (the K_Street crowd or Gucci Gulch; whichever you prefer). The organization lobbies hard in DC and on its own must oppose what they view as a threat to their raison d'etre. I doubt they polled their members about it at all or, if so, that there was any attempt to inform them of what the FairTax really was. Many of the comments made by their "consultants" make little sense. You might read this data on the subject:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/PwCRebuttal.pdf
I don't recall the info you mentioned about Wal-Mart, but I'll see if I can dig up anything on it. After all, "they" say that memory is the second thing to go [... don't ask!!]:-). The Wal-Mart thing is interesting if true, though.
Actually, there are a lot more than the two camps you mention - a lot more. But I won't waste time in describing them here (that said, there are some who will NEVER support it). Once people begin to find out about the FairTax and the benefits it has (even at the 23% rate), a high percentage begin to support it. That's why the grassroots support has grown so. Check the Comments #2 on the President's Tax Panel from Individuals and you'll see that there are more specifically naming the FairTax (or its bill number) than any other plan.
My own belief is that, once passed, the tax rate will be able to be dropped fairly rapidly due to the many economic gains the FairTax allows. If so, that would be the time to hammer on Congressmen to enable the lower rate, reduce the prebate, etc.
What's Column B or should I even ask?
The IRS is power to politicians, to have it gone means a lot of their influence goes as well.
[To me it is more like not being beaten at all when one considers all the beneficial effects.]
Yes, when taking everything into account -- and comparing it to the current system. I was trying to focus on just this one aspect -- there is a group of people that would be better off with a lower rate and no Prebate.
You and I both agree the FairTax is better than the current system, so I have set aside that comparison. Now I am focusing on what the options are within the FairTax alone and the tradeoffs involved.
[Actually, there are a lot more than the two camps you mention - a lot more.]
Yes, I suppose I should have phrased it as "Those concerned about the FairTax rate mostly fall into two camps."
The person you mention on the blogsite has apparently never seen what happens in a town when a Wal-Mart comes in anew. There is more than enough competition - enough so that even Wal-Mart responds to local competition.
I agree with you that there will be an increase in consumption due to built-up demand, but even more important for the longer run is that there will be a very large increase in savings and investment - many forms of which are now punished. This will help our own industrial base re-load as will the beneficial effects of border-adjustable taxes (the WTO problem) which will help greatly and the way the bill is written there are some attractive incentives for foreign companies to establish themselves with a real presence here helping to build our industrial base even more.
Economically, it will be an exciting time for the U. S.
Here's a bit of comical speculation.
Currently, because people pay taxes on earned income, there are many people that don't report all of their earned income.
That includes food servers, bartenders, massage therapists -- anyone for whom tips are a large part of their income only reports a portion of their tips. Basically just the 8% of Sales the IRS expects would represent minimum tipping in America for the service provided.
Then there are construction contractors, painters, plumbers, etc. -- that have a "cash" price for a homeowner and don't report that income.
Anyway, it would be interesting to learn how their wage income mysteriously rises in a single year when it is no longer taxed, but is still used as the basis for Social Security and Disability benefits.
I know some people are worried about the dis-location of the Social Security benefit program from a direct link to the taxes you paid. I'm not worried. On average, what people earn is proportional to what they spend, so I'm not worried about the lack of a direct link. And the additional benefit as you near the SS Tax cap is minimal anyway.
But I will be amused if suddenly all of these people who have large cash incomes start owning up to what they really earn, in an effort to maximize their SS benefits.
A cogent observation - and quite true, I think. The cash-income folks won't even have to "own up" though, they'll just spend and provide more sales tax revenue.
The "cash economy" is quite large now as you observe and makes a read mockery ot the SQL (Status Quo Lovers) who are frantically trying to claim there will be "unlimited evasion" under the FairTax. The dirty litle secret (which many of them know but won't own up to) is there are truly massive amounts ov evasion already. In fact, I believe that there will be less under the FairTax due to its simplicity and what most will perceive as fairness in that everyone pays the same tax rate.
The non-compliance/evasion figures are probably even larger than those of the cash economy (but who knows?). A recent study by Bear Stearns pegged the numbers of illegals working "off the books" at about 5 million workers with a tax gap of $35 billion (it may be that this was worker revenue rather tax revenue as they stated, but either way it's a lot of tax missed).
The IRS's own figures for non-compliance (not evasion or illegal income) is something like 20-25% of current tax revenues. Adding up all these numbers wakes one wonder why the SQL group don't just admit present non-compliance & evasion (including the cash economy) is really out of sight? The answer, I think, is that they are getting a bit paniced as they see the FairTax gaining rapidly and they see their income tax based turf under threat.
It will be interesting to see what the President's Tax Panel recommends, won't it? Like you, I think that with the FairTax as our tax law that revenues will increase greatly - and quickly - due to what you have observed let alone larger economic benefits with exports, etc.
Oh, I have no doubt they are spending their earnings and hence will contribute more honestly via the FairTax.
And they won't need to "own up" to the IRS or fear any sort of penalty. I expect them to finally "own up" to friends and family, and maybe even themselves. (I'm sure some have convinced themselves they really don't earn very much.) And to the SSA so their benefit calculations can start to improve.
They will be able to take pride in how much they earn and not cry poor all the time. They will suddenly WANT people to know how much money they really earn.
1) Credit will be easier to qualify for.
2) SS benefits will be higher.
3) Disability benefit would be higher if needed.
4) They will suddenly be more attractive to the opposite sex.
5) Pride.
6) Relief from fear of eventually being caught by the IRS.
Six good reasons for those working, in particular, in the cash economy to support the FairTax.
Hey, I like that #4 even though I'm poor and plan to remain that way.
It will be interesting to see how the "fessing up" for SSA workd out. I think we'll get a good reading about things when the TaxPanel's report becomes public. That will be illuminating.
Unfortunately, I don't work in the cash economy, so none of these points will particularly benefit me.
I laughed the first time somebody told me they'd gotten a big raise, and although he had gotten no better looking, the ladies definitely found him more attractive.
Sad, but true.
How come the chart you posted of total comp/hours worked cuts off at 1992, just as the curve begins to roll over and go negative?
Could it be that real wages per hour have been falling since the business lobby's last boondoggle, NAFTA, got passed?
Inquiring minds want to know. What's the data since 1992 look like?
Mainly because that was the data available at the time it was created, prior to 1998.
You want to find a more uptodate chart, go research it and create one.
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.