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."
Wait, I think you might be on to something. I am going to assume that the "upper classes" were comprable to nobility. They were the wealthy patrons, land owners, etc.
Although we even more wealthy individuals now, they can't be compared in the same way to those of old. But, there are entities that might be similar. They are called corporations.
An economic crisis would not be a point in time to start asking for more money from corporates, but other crises might best be handled in that way. Practical? I don't know, but maybe worth exploring.
I have to make one correction to my agreement with the government using only 6% of GDP. I think it might good to have a slightly higher percentage that would allow the government to run a surplus (maybe accounting for 8-10%). This way if the Fed can no longer cut interest rates to provide fiscal stimulus, a tax cut remains an option.
Additionally, consumers would DEFINITELY know the Federal sales tax rate......and it would be in front of their faces at all times......every time they spend money. This is a great way to drive home the reality of the cost of government, and woe to the legislator that tries to raise that tax rate, for every consumer in the country would immediately see it and HOWL.
Why? The average persons takehome pay would increase 20-30 percent.
Also, they say a national sales tax would have to be astronomical for the government to collect its current level of revenues.
IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY EITHER WAY!!! You simply give a consumer fallen on hard times a chance to save for a short period of time by postponing purchases.
Yes! We are talking about a POINT of SALE National Retail Sales Tax and NOT a European style Value Added Tax. Plenty of educational material can be found at the Americans for Fair Taxation website.
That simply isn't true my friend! PLEASE take the time to read This research paper on this EXACT subject.
Sorry but you are again incorrect! H.R. 2525, the FairTax bill is completely revenue neutral! PLEASE GO Here and read about what we a re talking about here!
We have exactly 0 protection against having both an income tax and a sales tax as things CURRENTLY stand but if we would demand passage of H.R.2525, currently before congress in the ways and means committee, we would have MANY protections against such a senerio since Income taxes would be illegal by statute, the IRS would be defunded, and ALL their exsisting records would be destroyed! READ it for yourself!
I still like Steve Forbes' idea. A flat tax with the first, say, $30,000 of income exempted for everyone...set at around 15 percent with no deductions to tempt Congress to legislate through tax policy.
Here's how tax rates come out for the Armey/Shelby Flat Tax, a flat individual/corporate income tax, which leaves all SS/Medicare, Federal Unemployment, excise taxes and tariffs in place and unchanged. All new revenue bills are required to be revenue neutral under the Budget Enforcement Act, meaning not projected to not increase the current deficit or decrease current surplus when compared with the current tax law.
http://www.library.unt.edu/govinfo/subject/vital.html
- "The chart below shows a hypothetical set of flat tax rates and allowances that would result in revenue neutrality. This model, produced by the Congressional Budget Office shows that all federal income tax revenues could be fully replaced by a system with a flat tax rate of 13.1 percent and no deductions. Allowing total deductions for a family of four to reach $36,800 (more than double the amount allowed in 1995) would require a 19.9 percent rate."
Joint Economic Committee
Revenue Neutral Tax Rates for Alternative Allowances and Exemptions Under a Flat Tax Standard Allowances Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Single $13,100 $13,100 $ 6,550 $ 6,550 $0 Joint $26,200 $26,200 $13,100 $13,100 $0 Head of Household $17,200 $17,200 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 $0 Dependent Exemption $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $0 Revenue Neutral Tax Rate 19.9% 19.4% 16.8% 16.3% 13.1% Source: Congressional Budget Office, 1995.
Under the Armey "Flat" tax, as it is currently proposed,(HR1040 introduced 3/15/2001) a single person would pay:
7.65% ---- 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary income below $13,600,
26.65% --- 19% + 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary and other taxable income from $13,600-$75,000
20.45% --- 19% + 1.45% Medicare tax on wages/salaries and other taxable income from $75,001 up.
0% -------- on savings & bond income and stock dividends.
And that single person's business/employer pays,
19% ------ on earnings (Gross Receipts less allowed business deductions, exemptions and credits)
13.65% ---- 7.65% on SS/Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's on wages up to $75,000.
7.45% ----- 1.45% on Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's wages greater than $75,000.
Plus additional selective excises and tariffs dependant upon the nature of business engaged in.
Note: The base "Flat Tax Rate" is subject to meet revenue neutrality requirements under the Budget Enforcement act. The 19% rate stated in the Armey/Shelby Flat Tax proposal does not meet these requirements and would of necessity be adjusted upwards, and/or personal exemptions and business deductions be reduced to meet revenue neutrality criteria for enactment.
Further the Flat Tax is a VAT in the manner in which it transfers tax onto the consumer from business which is taxed at all stages of production and passed on to the consumer hidden in price of retail goods an services.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm
"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"
"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."
The Flat Income Tax (FIT) proposal, H.R. 1040, has two elements: a Flat Income Tax on an individual's earned income, and a VAT on businesses. The Flat Income Tax on businesses, is, by admission of Professors Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, who "wrote the book" on the FIT, a subtraction method Value Added Tax.
Quoting Hall and Rabushka ("The Flat Tax," Hoover Institution Press, 1995, pp55,56):
"To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following:
Total revenue from sales of goods and services
less
purchases of inputs from other firms
less
wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers
less
purchases of plant and equipment."
FReepers, the Flat Income Tax is a Value Added Tax in respect of business taxation. Professor Hall testified to that effect in a Ways and Means Committee Hearing in 1995 as well as in his book on the subject "The Flat Tax" in that same year; And it is an income tax in respect of individual taxation.
So, let us quit wasting bandwidth arguing about the Flat Income Tax. It combines a VAT with an income tax. Those of you who do not like VATs should not like the FIT. And those of you who do not like income taxes should not like the FIT, either.
Maybe Bush is seeing only one or the other tax, either a sales tax or an income tax but not both, but it is a certainty that the liberals in Congress (including some Republicans) don't want to give up wealth re-distribution through income taxation.
The income tax is punishment for the wealthy. As long as people in this country believe that they should pay less taxes than someone else, simply because someone else has a bigger income, then having an NST-only system is a pipe dream. Even my father-in-law, who considers himself very conservative, believes that "rich" people should pay higher percentages in income tax simply because they have more money. This mentality is rampant in the country. We can't have a change in the tax code without a change in the general mindset of the population.
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.