Replies

"So then the question becomes, do you want to have to deal with a complex and convoluted tax code once a year for an income tax return? (Or once a quarter for your estimated tax payment?) Or do you want to pay the compliance cost of your grocery store, gas station, home improvement warehouse, convenience store, liquor store or whatever having to wade through a convoluted sales tax code every time you buy something? Because with the "fair tax," in 10 years, it will take a whole lot of computing horsepower and a fair amount of CPU time to calculate the sales tax on your weekly grocery run. And you can probably count on a lot more paperwork at least annually to compute what your monthly 'rebate' check will be.

In a worst case scenario, you might end up having to provide a federal taxpayer ID of some kind in order to buy anything at a store. I doubt that's on the immediate horizon. But I also doubt that in 1913 anyone could forsee that you would have to provide a taxpayer ID number and photo ID to an employer before they could hire you."

That's a pretty frightening picture you paint. Before we get too frightened by it, let's examine it a bit further.

First of all, even if differential rates on various consumption items and complicating the rebate are inevitable, as you suggest, that still doesn't even come close to the 60,000 page monstrosity that we have now. Absent from the equation would still be holding periods for capital gains/losses, computing the tax basis for capital property, amortization of business start-up costs and other intangibles, AMT calculations, depreciation schedules (inc. different useful lives and depreciation methods for different types of assets), floors and ceilings for all sorts of deductions, R&D tax credits, deferred taxes for book purposes (which may be an asset or a liability), different types of retirement accounts and the distinct tax treatment of each, different types of child credits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. IOW, even if the worst case scenario that you paint for the implementation of a sales tax were to come about, it still would not be nearly as bad as what we have now.

Now, let's examine the likelihood of your worst case scenario developing. Since you brought up the importance of historical precedent, let's think about our extensive history with sales taxes. I believe there are 45 states which currently have sales taxes. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of those have been added within the past 15 years or so. How many of them have the degree of complexity that you insist is inevitable for an NRST? Zero, zip, nada, nary a one. In fact, most of the complexity with state and local sales taxes arises from jurisdictional differences, a problem that would be non-existent with an NRST. Furthermore, there is already a substantial move to simplify and standardize sales taxes nationally. You can learn more about the SSTP here
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163105744

So here is what we can say about our rather extensive experience in this country with sales taxes
1. in no case are they nearly as complex as the scary scenario that you painted, which isn't even as bad as the current system from a complexity standpoint,
2. the elimination of deductions removes a vast "playground" for elected officials to exercise their proclivity for complication,
3. contrary to income taxes, the trend right now in mid 2005 is toward simplifying sales taxes. That certainly isn't a recognizable trend with respect to income taxes.
4. Because the FairTax would encourage states to harmonize their tax systems with the FairTax, and there are good reasons to believe that they will, passing the FairTax can even be expected to have a positive effect on state revenue systems, as far as complexity goes.

Therefore, I don't think it is even debatable whether or not passage of the FairTax would result in a simpler, less burdensome system than the current one, both initially upon passage and for years and years afterward. The FairTax as currently written represents pretty much the "irreducable minimum" as far as simplicity. The question is to what extent FairTax supporters would be able to successfully fight to keep it "pure". Even a huge, exponential complication of that current irreducable minimum would leave us with a much, much simpler system than the one that we have today.

There is one very important reason that simplifying the current system is impractical. The jumbled up mess of spaghetti that our current system has evolved into is one in which any change in one area will have a ripple effect on others. I don't believe, for example, that President Bush set out to complicate the tax system with his tax cuts when he came into office 4+ years ago. It is simply the nature of the current system. There are major problems with the current system which must be addressed, such as the AMT. Trying to do so without adding complexity will be an exercise in futility. And I'm just talking about the major equity problems, not the economic problems. There is no way, for example, that I am aware of to retain the current system and make our tax system border adjustable so that our producers can compete on a level playing field with their international counterparts without MAJOR redesign and complication.

A friend of mine with a technology background made a good analogy that I think is appropriate to this discussion. He said that there are times in business when the application software that the business runs on has been modified so many times and has had so many "band-aids" applied, that it just makes more sense to throw the whole system out and start all over with a comprehensive, well-designed replacement, even though software conversions are a major pain in the ___." He said that we are probably a good 10 - 15 years beyond that point with our tax system.