Posted on 08/24/2005 9:40:44 PM PDT by RobFromGa
August 24, 2005
U.S. Representative John Linder
1026 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 770-232-3005
Fax: 770-232-2909
Copy: Neal Boortz, WSB Radio,
Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University
Dear Representative Linder:
I wrote to you two days ago regarding what I consider to be serious misrepresentations of the Fair Tax plan contained in your book, “The FairTax Book”. On page 2, you state “Let’s agree up front that this book is about honesty” and I intend to hold you at your word. Since that time, I have been in contact with Dr. Jorgenson in an attempt to clarify his understanding of this Plan and his calculation of expected price declines.
On pp. 22-23, your book states: “An extensive study of tax costs was completed a few years ago by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, then chairman of the Harvard Economics Department. On average, Jorgenson concluded, 22 percent of the price paid for a consumer product represents embedded taxes.”
You then went on to show a Chart (Fig 5.1) which shows the expected price decline without embedded costs for various goods and services as prepared by Jorgenson during his study.
On page 55, you go on to explain that these embedded taxes are “in addition to the money taken out of your check in income and payroll taxes.”
On page 59, you again invoke Dr. Jorgenson’s study: “If you’re looking for scholarly support for the proposition that prices will fall once the embedded taxes are removed, we can check back with [Jorgenson’s] “The Economic Impact of the National Retail Sales Tax” and you quote his report:
Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers… would fall by an average of twenty percent”
In this statement, Jorgenson seems to say that one of the reasons for the price drop at the producer level was the elimination of the tax on wages paid to workers. So, naturally if the business is going to realize this benefit it must reduce the workers gross pay be the amount that is currently being paid in the form of income and payroll taxes. This only makes sense because how can the business reduce costs if it gives the worker tax savings to the worker?
Later on page 59, you state: “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social security taxes, or Medicare taxes and you’ll be paying just about the same price for T-shirts and other consumer goods and services that you were paying before the FairTax.”
Dr. Jorgenson’s report clearly showed that under his study the worker would not get their complete paycheck, because if he/she did, there would be no cost savings to the business and therefore no price drop associated with worker taxes.
You continue this theme on page 83: “Remember that the poor, along with everyone else—will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes removed from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.”
On page 84, you make it clear though that even though the workers will keep all of their paychecks for a big raise, you still believe that because of “the disappearance of the embedded taxes, the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same”.
By assuming these two things together, you are misrepresenting Jorgenson’s report and double-counting the tax savings, first by giving them to the worker as a pay raise, and then at the same time assuming that there was a cost savings to the business.
On page 85 you make it clear the worker will get the pay raise.
And then on page 111, you tie it all together with a Quick Review in which you erroneously assert that “Here’s what happens when we pass and implement the FairTax plan:”
“We start collecting 100 percent of our earnings on our paycheck.
“We all get virtual raises, since payroll taxes are no longer siphoned from our checks.
“The prices of consumer goods and services remain essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”
Dr. Jorgenson’s report seemed pretty clear to me, but I felt it was necessary to ask him directly what he meant so I sent him this e-mail:
At 09:29 AM 8/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Jorgenson,
I am a private US citizen who is concerned that the FairTax proponents are misrepresenting your conclusions. Would you please comment on the attached letter I sent to Mr. Boortz and Rep. Linder? I think that they are being dishonest to imply that the wage earner will keep his entire paycheck, while at the same time businesses will be able to reduce costs? Your March 1996 testimony stated, in part:
5.Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent
Are you expecting business to reap a benefit from the taxes that that the worker no longer pays? It certainly sounds like that is part of where you see the business reducing its costs.
Rob
Dr. Jorgenson responded:
From: Dale Jorgenson [mailto:djorgenson@harvard.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Rob xxx
Re: Fair Tax- Is your 1995-6 Testimony being misrepresented by Boortz/Linder book?
August 24
Dear Rob,
A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax. Any gains by workers and investors would be the result of increase economic efficiency.
[He then went on to recommend his book called LIFTING THE BURDEN, about another tax reform plan he calls Efficient Taxation]
Best,
Dale
I wanted to be perfectly clear what he was saying, so I asked him to clarify his email:
At 06:41 PM 8/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Jorgenson,
Excuse me for my lack of understanding of your answer, when you say "workers would keep that after-tax pay" are you saying that if they are making $1000 a week now, and paying $200 payroll+income taxes now, that under the FairTax you were assuming that workers would get paid $800 and keep all of that? Or are you saying that you meant they would make $1000 under the FairTax?
Regards,
Rob xxx
Dr Jorgenson responded:
August 24
Dear Rob,
I am saying that the worker would continue to receive the after-tax amount of $800. Prices received by producers would decline to cover the cost of after-tax wages to workers and after-tax dividends and interest to investors. However, taxes paid at the retail level would include the Fair Tax.
Best,
Dale
So, Dr. Jorgenson, whose report you are relying on to support your calculation of embedded taxes, is stating that in making those embedded tax calculations he was not assuming that the worker would keep his current after-tax amount, NOT that the worker would keep all of his current gross pay-check. By reducing the gross pay of the worker to the current after-tax amount, the producers would see a cost reduction that would allow them to reduce selling prices. There would be no increase in take-home pay.
I think you need to carefully review the misrepresentations in your book and offer a retraction and modify subsequent printings to remove these errors. You have spent a large amount of time on this plan, and it is still a viable option for debate even without the bug windfall pay raise for everyone. I would enjoy the opportunity to discuss this with you further if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Rob xxx
xxxxxxx
So, Dr. Jorgenson, whose report you are relying on to support your calculation of embedded taxes, is stating that in making those embedded tax calculations he was assuming that the worker would keep his current after-tax amount, NOT that the worker would keep all of his current gross pay-check.
Error was made while I was formatting for FR post, not in original letter.
The individuals are responsible for their tax burden, and the Fair Tax would eliminate that burden from them.If the individuals are performing a service their gross income could be subject to the 23% fairtax....then they'd pay tax again when they spend what's left.
In the mean time the IRS has strict requirements for determining independent contractors from employees...tell your brother to be careful.
I would expect that domestic producers would be aided against imports. Importers can now play around with the amount which their US subsidiary pays for the import to make sure that little or no profit is made in the US. If a sales tax is put in place, that advantage disappears.
Do you really think I would make this up? You are nuts.
Not really. The big advantage of the NRST is that it would finally get people to realize what government is costing them.
I I raised that very question on this thread four years ago:
Can the NRST Really Reduce Consumer Prices by 20% to 30%?
It seemed pretty clear to me that Dr. Jorgensen was being misrepresented, or at best, misunderstood. Though I contacted Dr. Jorgensen about this at the time, I never received a response. I'm glad this has finally been cleared up.
EVERYBODY THIS LOOKS LIKE A BOGUS E-MAIL FROM HERE.Uh oh, You too have been outed by the narrow minded self professed arbiter of good and evil...
It couldn't possibly be true even if it was clear in his 96 or 97 testimony.
One of you is lying for sure robfromga....< /sarcasm >
Good job on that earlier thread, how in the world do they publish a book and make these claims?
Boortz I can understand embellishing, Linder I am just shocked. He seems like a good man the times I have talked to him. I can only assume that he doesn't understand the plan real well.
Who's the idiot in this picture?
I never seen a Freeper so determined to keep the current tax code.. You love taxes just admit it... I am going to bed now. However, I can promise you I am going to contact the Dr. and see if this is valid, what does he thing of the fair tax and if your conclusion was correct.
thanks for helping to verify the email address. Like I would make up emails from a Harvard economist to make my case. Sheesh...
Knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll tell him what he meant and why he was wrong when he thunk it.
Knock off the troll comments
Thanks
Stop talking sense, dammit! DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!
;o)
The "FairTax" crowd is deluding none save themselves.
Naturally, you will be mobbed and maligned by the Kool-Aid drinkers who live under the illusion that taxing items at 23+% (for starters) won't have a negative effect on purchases. And they also think it won't create a burgeoning black market.
They'd just as soon want you to forget that the "fair tax" notion has been run before and consistently discovered to be an abysmal failure. But they're willing to risk tanking the U.S. economy for a regressive tax scheme. What cretins...
The big advantage of the NRST is that it would finally get people to realize what government is costing them.Unless you're poor, or a business that isn't retail or doesn't perform a service....
Doesn't everyone have w2's, check stubs, tax returns, 1099's etc.? What would a government check for everyone every month and a worthless receipt thrown away in the bag you carried it home in prove?
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.