Replies

1. The FT eliminates the bias that the current tax system provides in favor of foreign producers over and above our own producers, both in foreign markets and also here at home in our own domestic market.

Which is a specious argument, at best. The "bias" towards foreign producers is in effect because other nations tax far less than we do.

Since we are not changing our tax rates (just the structure of how we collect them) there is not going to be a net change in the domestic tax burden versus the international one.

The only way to truly effect that change is to reduce government spending and, therefore, taxation on the whole.

2. It eliminates several hundred billion $$$ in compliance costs - capital which would be freed up for far more productive pursuits.

While the number you cite is overblown, in part because there will still be compliance costs, I do agree with this.

Any simplification of the system will result in improvements here.

3. The FT would facilitate the repatriation of much of the $10+ trillion which is trapped offshore by the current tax system.

Another argument with questionable veracity. That money is sitting offshore because the government wishes to tax it at a high 35% rate when it returns. The 30% FT rate is almost as high. . .

There is virtually no debate among economists who have studied the FairTax that it would increase the rate of economic growth in this country. The degree of acceleration may be debatable, but not whether or not any increase will result.

I, too, agree that there will be some growth, and I'm not even an economist.

That growth will, however, be marginal since the ultimate anchor to success is the size and scope of the government.

Since the FT does nothing to reduce that beyond trimming the IRS it's not going to spur significant growth.

The economic studies performed on the FT indicate that GDP growth of 10+% in the first year or two after passage are likely, with that rate gradually tapering off after that. However, even 10 years after implementation, GDP growth would be a fraction of a percent higher under the FT than under a continuation of the current system. By that time, the US economy would be 1/4 to 1/3 larger than it would have been under a continuation of the current system.

Sounds like some self-serving studies. If they rely on the improvements you cite they are way off base.

Regardless, the same improvement could be recognized by a reduction in government spending. Every dollar collected in taxes is 2-3 dollars lost to the GDP.

A 3-4% reduction in the Federal budget would have the same effect as the FT and it would be sustainable since taxes are actually being lowered.

That’s a ridiculously simplistic view of tax reform and one that you won’t find any support for among respected economists.

Really? Where do you think I got that, then?

That is the absolute bottom line. Sure there is some float in the concept, but the ultimate measure is sound. Lower taxes = higher productivity and higher taxes = lower productivity.

Any exercise which doesn't address that basic issue is a waste of time.

I.e. rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

“The ‘bias’ towards foreign producers is in effect because other nations tax far less than we do.”

No, that is incorrect again. Are you trying to set some record for most misstatements on a FR thread?

The bias against US producers is because the US, unlike almost all major economies in the world, has no mechanism to “border adjust” its taxes. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, 29 of them have a border adjustment mechanism in their tax systems. That one country which does not have such a mechanism has the largest trade deficit (on either a relative or an absolute basis) of the group; in fact, the other 29 have a net trade surplus. Does anyone think that is coincidence?

“A 3-4% reduction in the Federal budget would have the same effect as the FT and it would be sustainable since taxes are actually being lowered.”

Do you have a source to back up that statement? I’m sure you wouldn’t just make something like that up without some credible research to support it.

Would you?