Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National sales tax gains momentum
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, November 13, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

Posted on 11/12/2002 11:46:28 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Lawmakers and experts who support fundamental tax reform are eyeing a consumption-tax plan being worked out by the Bush administration that they believe if implemented would make the U.S. tax code much simpler to follow and be a boon to economic growth.

The administration's plan, first reported by the Washington Post last month, calls for shifting the tax system away from taxing income and targeting consumption instead. The paper reported that administration tax policy wonks within the Treasury Department are still working out the details, and that their progress has largely been kept under wraps.

Officially, White House tax-policy experts have spent the past year working on reform options to present to the president, but "economists and tax lobbyists close to the effort believe that Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill is serious about elevating tax reform on Washington's agenda," said the Post.

Some experts and lawmakers have long complained that the government's system of taxation is painfully complex, difficult to administer, too costly and inefficient. The labyrinth of rules and regulations – mostly the work of a Congress seeking to curry favor with constituents and business interests – grows increasingly more convoluted by the year.

While it may not be a panacea for hard-core tax opponents, a consumption-based system is seen at least as a more equitable way of raising the money necessary to fund government functions, according to supporters.

"The Bush administration's plan to move toward a consumption-based tax is a winner on all fronts," says Chris Edwards, the libertarian CATO Institute's director of fiscal policy. "A consumption-based tax would be simpler, more efficient, pro-growth and fairer to taxpayers."

In a policy briefing, Edwards said a consumption tax would not only benefit consumers, but the businesses they patronize as well.

"On the business side, a consumption-based tax would scrap the complex depreciation system for immediate capital expenses. That reform would make U.S. businesses much more competitive in the world economy and create an investment boom that would drive Americans' wages higher," he said.

"On the individual side, a consumption-based tax could be arrived at by greatly expanding the Roth IRA and turning it into a Universal Savings Account. That would boost the savings rate and increase financial security for all Americans," Edwards added.

Consumer spending comprises two-thirds of the U.S. economy and was credited with helping curb a recession in 2001.

The consumption tax is also a staple of Americans for Fair Taxation, a tax-reform group that says taxing goods and services is simpler and fairer.

"Georgia is a prime example of the power of the frustrated taxpayer. In several congressional races and one Senate race, Fair Tax supporters and angry taxpayers worked to produce major upsets in support of pro-Fair Tax candidates. We witnessed this in other key races across the nation," says Genie Hayes, a spokeswoman for the group.

"We expect that these recent political victories will solidify the White House's decision to make tax replacement … into a key part of the president's agenda," she added.

Hayes said the Post report "confirms what we have been told by Washington insiders for the last two years – President Bush is listening to the American taxpayer."

"Any tax reform must result in a tax code that is simple, fair, voluntary, transparent, border neutral, industry neutral, strengthens Social Security and has manageable transition costs," said Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., in The Washington Times Oct. 28.

"These neutral principles would all be fulfilled by my proposal to eliminate all income and payroll taxes and replace them with a national retail sales tax," said Linder, author of the Fair Tax Act of 2001.

That's a good idea, says Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, as long as Americans don't end up with both an income tax and a consumption tax, as is the case in most of Europe.

"My worry," he told WorldNetDaily, "is that somewhere down the road, after we replace the income tax with a consumption tax, the American people will get saddled with an additional income tax."

Critics of a consumption-based sales tax say adding a levy at the point of sale would likely lead to less consumer spending, thereby worsening a weakened economy. Also, they say a national sales tax would have to be astronomical for the government to collect its current level of revenues.

William Gale, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institute, a public-policy think tank, estimates that proposals to replace virtually all federal revenues with a 23 percent tax-inclusive national sales tax rate are based on assumptions that real government spending would decline by $480 billion per year, and that there would be no tax avoidance, evasion or political erosion of the tax base.

"Correction for these assumptions indicates that the required tax-inclusive rate would be over 50 percent," he writes in a 1999 policy paper.

But some economists say reducing income taxes means Americans will have more disposable income – and will spend it.

Indeed, the Commerce Department reported earlier this month that "robust" consumer spending contributed to third quarter economic growth at twice the rate of growth in the second quarter of this year. GDP climbed at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the three months from July to September, up from the preceding quarter's 1.3 percent rate.

"The largest contributors to the step-up were an acceleration in consumer spending – especially for motor vehicles – and a slowdown in imports," said the department.

Other critics support tax cuts as a way to reduce government spending.

"The tax shift is one of the great games of government. In the game, the government uses the prospect of lowering one tax in order to buy support for raising another," says Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian economic think tank based in Auburn, Ala. "The proposal to move from an income tax to a consumption tax is a good example of the game."

Rockwell told WND that "the essential key to understanding the trick is to realize that the government wants money and is going to get it one way or another."

"Zigzagging from one method to another does not change the reality, but it can fool the gullible. And it can raise a lot of money from affected groups during the transition period," he said.

Fundamentally, Paul agrees. He also believes that for Americans to achieve real tax reform, the government has to become more frugal.

"I think if we waved a wand today and had a sales tax implemented and the income tax removed, we really don't solve a lot of our problems because we still have the (government) spending side to deal with," he said.

Other experts say that millions of Americans are paying more than their fair share of taxes under the current system.

"The total tax burden on Americans is – and will remain – at near-record levels," says an assessment by the Heritage Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Washington, D.C. "Marginal tax rates are far too high, savings and investment are still subject to discriminatory taxation, and needless complexity in the Internal Revenue Code foments corruption and adds a hidden compliance tax on productive activity."

Rockwell says the argument for a consumption-versus-income tax rests on a few key principles.

Supporters claim "the consumption tax is at least voluntary," he said, but "actually, it is just as coercive as any tax."

"Under the income tax, if I earn income and don't pay the tax, I can be fined and jailed," said Rockwell. "Under the consumption tax, if I consume a taxed item and don't pay the tax, I get fined and jailed.

"It's true that I can choose not to consume that item. Similarly under the income tax, I can choose not to earn income," he added. "Nothing is voluntary if I am not permitted to exempt myself. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax. If there were, it would be called something else."

Meanwhile, now that Republicans are back in control of both houses of Congress, the administration will seek to make a set of tax cuts set to expire in 2010 permanent, while working on another tax-cut package to include reducing the taxation on share dividends, the Financial Times reported last week.

The new tax cuts, in addition to the Federal Reserve's half-point cut last week in the rate banks charge each other for overnight loans, will be aimed at helping consumers reduce personal debt and get their own financial houses back in order without inducing another slowdown, according to White House economists.

"If we look at the personal savings numbers, the reach for excess in the 1990s is being unwound," said Larry Lindsey, Bush's chief economic adviser. "I think that will continue, and it makes it incumbent on us to maintain real personal disposable income.

"The tax code is a luxury the economy can no longer afford," he said this week.

Others were more pointed.

"While Republicans will control Washington, they'll also be under the gun to deliver an economic turnaround," said an analysis last week in BusinessWeek magazine. "If they pull it off, they can look forward to an even giddier Election Night 2004. If not, there won't be much room for excuses."

Paul was not optimistic.

"I don't think any more will happen [on tax reform and reduction] now than happened during the Reagan administration or since Republicans took over the House in 1994," he said.

"The one thing no one should expect, despite the rhetoric, is that their taxes are going to go down, because government needs money now more than ever," Paul added. "I hope there's serious debate, but I don't see much happening."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-198 next last
To: nopardons
Yes -- and, as the Gipper is wont to say, you ain't seen nothing yet! ;^)
141 posted on 11/15/2002 12:05:06 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I don't care about the $100,000 price... sell price is all relative.

Let's say $500,000. How much must you earn to buy a $500,000 house in cash (no mortgage). If your avg income tax rate is 28%, then you must earn $500,000 / .72 = $694,444.44.

If there is no income tax, then you must earn the price of the house + tax. Let's say the tax rate is 25%. How much will you have to earn to buy the house?

$500,000 * 1.25 = $625,000.00.

and for your final comment about interest rates... I will try to keep this simple. Let's say you had been wanting to start a business, but the cost of capital was too high. Well, one year ago, interest rates dropped like a rock, so you borrow money and start a business. How long do you think it would take, on average, to create a profitable venture that employs several people? It does not happen immediately. To say interest rates dropped 6 months ago, but you don't see immediate results is looking far too much in the short-term. If a company sells a 30 year bond at low interest rates, you will see the impact during the 30 years, because costs will be lower due to lower interest payments. It takes time for the money obtained through the sale of the bonds to be put into an economically beneficial use.

Undeniable Logic
142 posted on 11/15/2002 12:07:22 AM PST by undeniable logic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Rightyo ! :-)

The Dems are on the slippery downside slope. Pelosi is going to help them increase that; so is algore ! Did you hear that he now advocates Socialist Medicine, a la England and Canada ?

143 posted on 11/15/2002 12:10:24 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Pelosi is going to help them increase that

Which is why I say, Go-Nancy-Go! *Very wicked grin* ;^)

144 posted on 11/15/2002 12:14:42 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Did you hear that he now advocates Socialist Medicine, a la England and Canada ?

Wait a min....Al who? ;^)

145 posted on 11/15/2002 12:15:44 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: undeniable logic
Okay, you'll have to double + the now used house price ; however, that's still not the crux of the problem; which you still can't see. So, let me explain it again. using your figures.A house selling for $500,000 plus a consumption tax is, per your figures $694,444.44. Then you claim that a person would have to earn aa nontaxed $625,000.00. That still doesn't match the $694,444.44 and excludes all other expenses. Expense, which the 25 % ( probably higher ) consumption tax would have taxed. It also leaves out the realestate lady's fees, the tax ( in some places ) on the purchse, and the consumption tax on moving, new furniture, drapes, paint, the painters, etc. ; all on top of local sales tax and property taxes. I don't know about YOU, but that all puts me off .

Neither have you addressed the fact that you can't just " do away " with the income tax, immediately and install this tax. There is also NOTHING to stop an income tax being reintroduced, ON TOP OF THE CONSUMPTION TAX , at some point in time.

Greenspan has been lowering interest rates for a year + now. Of course I know that startups take time. I probably understand this stuff better than you do. LOL

146 posted on 11/15/2002 12:20:59 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I'll join you in that " wicked grin " and a full throated " GO NANCY GO ". LOL
147 posted on 11/15/2002 12:22:00 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The " tree ". ( another wicked / evil grin )
148 posted on 11/15/2002 12:22:30 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
lol
149 posted on 11/15/2002 12:22:40 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Giggle
150 posted on 11/15/2002 12:25:13 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You misread what I said. A house + consumption tax is $625,000.00. If there was no consumption tax, the house would cost $500,000 + the income tax required to pay $500,00, which comes to $694,444.44. It is cheaper with the consumption tax. Now, of course, you could argue that the consumption tax rate should be set so that the tax is equivalent to the income tax required (otherwise, there would be a tax revenue drop).

The same logic applies to real estate lady, moving, furniture, drapes, painters, etc.

The argument that prices would drop by 25% and then add consumption tax so that you are at the same place is ludicrous. Essentially, the people that claim this are saying that all prices would be about the same after the tax, but there would be no income tax. This is dumb. The real benefit arises from the reduction in compliance costs. Also, it becomes increasingly difficult to make a consumption tax progressive. AND, individuals would no longer fear an audit. One other thing, it gets rid of hidden taxes (like employer paid taxes, property taxes applied to businesses, etc.)

What you are missing is during the initial construction, none of the construction items or work would have a consumption tax, because that is the manufacturing process. Only when it is sold as a new home would it be taxed. My guess is that when later sold, the difference in sales price would have to be taxed.

I do agree that the problem is that an income tax could be reintroduced.

What I personally would like to see is an amendment that allowed the only form of taxation to be a flat consumption tax. No income taxes, no property taxes, etc. It would consolidate all the taxing authorities, thereby significantly reducing compliance costs. Also, it would become extremely clear to the average joe how much he is paying in taxes.

Undeniable Logic
151 posted on 11/15/2002 1:09:30 AM PST by undeniable logic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: undeniable logic
Wait just a darned minute ! If there IS a consumption tax, on everything, then there WOULD be a tax on what is bought to construct a house. Since I was talking about an already built one, though, one built prior to the introduction of a consumption tax, you've managed to strengthen MY side of the argument AND proven that a consumption tax would then make buying the house more expensive than buying one under today's ( which needs fixing and lowering ! ) income tax situation.

The article says absolutely nothing about property taxes, state taxes of any and all kinds, being done away with ; just a change in the FED GOV system of tax collecting.Neither does it claim that a consumption tax could never be increased. It could and it would be.

All in all, not that many people get audited. Have YOU ever been ? I have and we did nothing wrong. It's inconvenient, a pain in the neck, but not the end of the world.

The Fed Gov can't do away with local property taxes. That's a state's perogavtive and is not even a state doing this, but a local community.

The majority of states have state income taxes and N.Y.C. even has a city income tax. This article and the vast majority of posters totally ignore these saliant facts! Also being totally ignored, are the local sales taxes, which in Chicago and N.Y.C. are almost 9% of most purchases. Since a 25% consumption tax, on top of all of that, would be close to 40 % taxation and NO ONE, not even the highest tax rate level, is that high, this would be punishing. BTW, nowhere, in this article is a rate even mentioned. For all we know, it could be a 20 % or a 25 % or a higher rate. What if it's 30 % ? Where's the tax saving then, for most people ?

152 posted on 11/15/2002 1:29:18 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bump!
153 posted on 11/15/2002 1:46:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
First, you are missing a critical part of the consumption tax. It is just like any retail sales tax. Example, let's say you own a gas station and you want to buy sodas to sell in your station. You do not pay sales tax when you buy it because you are tax exempt - you only charge the tax when it is sold in your store. There is no double tax. Same thing goes for manufacturing, and at the heart of it, a home is a manufactured product.

In theory, if set correctly, the taxes paid by an individual under a consumption tax or income tax would be identical. Let me provide a simple example. I earn $100 a year. Income tax is 25%. Therefore, I pay $25 in tax and can by $75 in product.

Now, let's say I earn the same $100 a year. Consumption tax is 33%. I buy a product for $75. The tax is $25.

See, there is no difference (if taxes are changed appropriately). My earnings are $100 in either case. I get $75 in either case. I pay $25 in tax in either case.

The difference is compliance costs. Let's say that compliance cost for an individual is 10% of income taxes, but for a business it is 5% of consumption taxes (increased efficiency) - in fact, I would say that since all businesses are already processing sales tax, there would be relatively little additional cost in asking them to include a federal sales tax to their local sales tax, all-the-while eliminating all individual taxpayer's compliance cost.

Also, the fed could do away with local property taxes. This doesn't mean they will, but they can.

Here's my concern. Govt's need a certain amount of money. They know people will be pissed if they collect it all in one place (because it is an enormous amt of money) so they split it up in all different kinds of taxes. There is a cost in collecting each tax. There is no question that a consolidated tax collection methadology would dramatically reduce the cost of collecting a tax. It would also dramatically reduce the taxpayer's time and financial cost of delivering the tax to the taxing authority.

I don't understand why you argue that changing an income tax to consumption tax would increase your taxes (it clearly depends on what the tax rate is) - it does not matter in any shape or form what methods and rates local govts use to collect revenue.

I do agree that local taxs in some communities are outrageous, but it is still additive to the income tax.

For example, look at your NY example. Case 1: 25% income tax 9% state sales tax. $100 - $25 income tax = $75. $75 / 1.09 = $68.81. This is how much product you can buy with your initial $100 in earnings.

Case 2: 25% Federal Sales Tax + 9% State Sales Tax = 34% total tax. $100 / 1.34 = $74.62.

You get to buy almost $6 more in product. In order to get the same amount of product, the federal sales tax would have to be $100 / 68.81 - 1.09 = 36.3%.

It's all symantics and you are either falling into the trap or spewing the trap for others to fall into.

Undeniable Logic
154 posted on 11/15/2002 1:54:39 AM PST by undeniable logic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: undeniable logic
You're still wrong. Sales tax in N.Y.C. is different from the sales tax in Buffalo, which is still different than what it is in Post Washington. Sales tax, in Jersey, is lower , than it is in Manhattan . Why is that important ? Because people, who live in N.Y.C., often shop in Jersey, to get a better rate. Now, take that a step farther, and you see the complications. What about internet sales, where now there is NO sales tax ? The government would have to regulate AND spy on those purchases, with a consumption tax ; not to ment the fact that those entities are NOT set up to get and transmit to the fed gov the new consumption taxes and they won't want to.

You're wrong about businesses already collecting sales taxes. Not ALL business and services are now taxed. They don't want to have to do this paperwork and what happens when ( and it will be ! ) things get screwed up ?

Let's see ... sales tax on stocks/ options / etc. now , commisions, added to a consumer tax, when the markets are just beginning to recover ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

On line trading ? WHO PAYS AND HOW DOES THE FED GOV MONITOR THAT ?

Right now, the top 1% pays a 38 % Fed Gov income tax. In N.Y.C., a purchase from Tiffany, would then be 39 % taxation ; with a consumption tax. There would still be a city and a state income tax, and a property tax ... now also on renters.That increases , NOT decreases their taxation.So, Madame decides that no, she really doesn't need that necklace / watch / ring / crystal vase / whatever and down go sales. She, instead, buys something as nice in Europe. The tax, when returning to the USA is lower than the USA's new consumption tax !

Now, on to " complience " costs. As I have already pointed out, many services and businesses are not now collecting sales taxes. All of a sudden they must. That adds to the price of the goods and / or services. There goes your theories, right into the ashcan ! :-)

This won't even come to pass. I don't know WHY any of us are even bothering with this. It's a pipedream, which won't make things easier, less complicated, nor put more money in any of our pockets. A falt tax is better, IMHO.

155 posted on 11/15/2002 2:16:29 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: undeniable logic
falt = flat
156 posted on 11/15/2002 2:16:48 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
"Remember the " LUXURY TAX " ?

Yes the Luxury Tax was terrible since it was ON TOP OF THE INCOME TAX.

NRST proposes to Emd the Income tax.

All that an Sales tax over an Income tax does is take money on the back side instead of the front side.

The main problem with income tax is "THE GOVERNMENT GETS IT'S MONEY BEFORE YOU DO!" You have no say in the matter.

With a Sales tax you decide how much you want to pay buy your buying habits.

Further you don't have to PAY someone to figure out how much you owe the damned government. This fact in itself is worth all the concerns you have.

157 posted on 11/15/2002 2:28:15 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
Yo, dude...ya have anything to do with this?!

FReegards...MUD

158 posted on 11/15/2002 3:28:04 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
However, if the President would truly use the bully pulpit and his vast political capital to finish the educational job, we could get there very, very quickly...and the end result would be what others on this thread have said...April 15th would be just another spring day, and George W. Bush would go down in history as one of the greatest of our Presidents.

mega ditto amen and hallelujah bump

159 posted on 11/15/2002 4:19:32 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; JayWolfe; Twig; Twig76; rdf; The Shrew; paul chapman; IronJack; Gelato; ...
Thanks for the ping EV. One interesting side benefit of NRST would be that, as it would slightly raise the prices of all new items and taxes would become VERY VISIBLE, Americans would again become "quality conscious". We have become a throw-away society.

Few people repair things anymore - it's too easy to pitch them and go to WalMart (province of China) and by another cheap piece of junk. As such, people don't look at buying products for the long run and manufacturers know this and design and build their products for a designated life-span accordingly. Trust me. I worked in the automotive industry for fifteen years. American cars are built to last SEVEN (7) YEARS because that is the duration for which the law says that a manufacturer must be able to provide repair parts! Now you know why I drive a Volvo (has over 200k miles on it and compression specs on its original untouched engine are still like new).

Americans have the know-how to build the best. At least we used to. Europe and Japan now have the reputations for high quality products. NRST would help bring this back to the good ol' USA. We'd see Americans once again being frugal and industrious fixing and repairing things around the house. Used items that you see everyday in the classifieds would sell like hotcakes. There would be less trash and landfill... the list of side benefits to NRST goes on-and-on! I have my fingers crossed.

160 posted on 11/15/2002 6:44:23 AM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson