RSS
 

Why a Fair Tax Would Be Better.

01 Nov

This is the second of a 3 part series on taxes.

1. Flat Tax

2. Fair Tax

3. Basic Economics and the Laffer Curve

Here in Colorado, appointed-never-elected Democrat Senator Michael Bennet launched a deceptive attack ad on his opponent, Ken Buck, claiming he wants a 23%  tax hike.  Here’s the ad:

YouTube Preview Image

Other Democrats around the country are attacking conservatives for the same thing.

And really, who would want a 23% sales tax?

To answer the question, we have to clarify what we’re talking about.  The conservatives talk about two types of tax alternatives. A Flat Tax and a Fair Tax. I wrote about the Flat Tax previously. The sales tax is called the “Fair Tax.”

The basic idea is this: Instead of penalizing earning money (income tax), saving money (interest tax), investing money (capital gains tax), and passing money on (death tax), we just collect taxes when money is spent.

Some liberal Democrats have suggested adding a federal sales tax in addition to income taxes. Some Conservatives are in favor of the sales tax, but instead of income taxes. This would likely require an amendment to the constitution.

The Math: Tax inclusive or exclusive?
The math on this is a bit tricky. We speak of income tax in tax-inclusive terms. A 23% tax means that 23% of your money goes to the taxes : out of $100 total, $23 is paid in taxes, 23/100 is 23%. We use different, tax-exclusive, terminology with sales tax. If a purchase total is $77, and the tax is 23%, we’d normally say it’s a 30% sales tax, as 23 (taxes)/77 (purchase amount) = 29.8% tax-exclusive.

This causes some confusion because the 23% tax could also be called a 30% tax when calculating it differently.

The Math: Why is 23% the magic number?
23% sales tax would be collected in place of income tax, Medicare tax, self-employment taxes, and corporate taxes.  This would pay for:

  • replacing the revenue the government currently makes with the current system.
  • sending prebate checks for low-income Americans
  • a few percent to pay retailers and local governments for collecting the sales tax.

23% Seems really high, even as an income tax. However, our current system taxes us more than just our tax bracket. Most people fall in the 15% income tax bracket, everyone has 7.65% taxed in payroll taxes, and the employer has to pay an additional 7.65%. That’s already more than 23%.

What’s a prebate?
The fair tax prebate  is a check mailed to poorer Americans at the beginning of every month to pre-emptively pay the sales tax for them.

What’s the benefit?
Suddenly everyone’s income would jump up without having to get a raise. Businesses would no longer have to pad their prices to pass corporate taxes on to consumers so every product becomes cheaper. Only new products are taxed, not used items, so anyone shopping at a thrift store for clothes just gets cheaper clothes.

Your life savings is no longer taxed, so everyone’s retirement funds are more valuable. The IRS would be able to be dramatically downsized because retailers and states would receive a portion of the tax revenue as payment for their collecting it. There would be no tax filing every spring.

The “fair tax” sales tax, like the flat tax, removes the system of loop-holes and allows everyone to pay a lower tax rate instead of just the poor and the super-wealthy. Both would stimulate the economy. Both would remove government financially rewarding and punishing Americans for behavior politicians favor or disfavor.

For more information, check out the FAQ over at the fair tax website.

 
8 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Tags: , ,

  • Bruce Hevner

    I think a better question might be why are you in favor of keeping one of the most convoluted and UNFAIR tax systems in the world,,the one we have now??
    What’s fair about it?? You are in favor of using the tax code to manipulate social behavior which is constantly tinkered with by every politician who thinks THEY know better than we how to spend our money?? You’re in favor of KEEPING THE IRS,, the most powerful agency of the US Government (NO other agency can TAKE your money and levy taxes on you)??.
    Reforming the current system is a JOKE. History proves that ALL efforts to reform the current system have only ADDED complexity and size to the current system. You are in favor of keeping the current 60,000+ page code that not even the HEAD of the IRS can understand???
    How can you justify being IN FAVOR of such a system??
    NO,, the ONLY answer is to JUNK the current system and TRY something different.
    The Flat Tax which would NOT repeal the 16 Amendment (the IRS) would STILL leave us under their control.
    Is The Fair Tax perfect?? Of course not,, but it would be FAR easier and TRANSPARENT to the public to work within its structure than what we have now. Look at what just happened with the 1099 fiasco. Haven’t heard about it?? Oh yeah it was PART OF THE HEALTH CARE REFORM bill!!
    But HEY,,, that’s just ME!
    http://www.fairtax.org

  • logos

    With the number of non federal income taxpayers approaching the critical mass of 50%, never before in our nation’s history have we needed to enact a fair taxation system more than now. See Fair Tax post at http://www.christianretirement.com “Learn to Say No.” America is experiencing problems in many areas. Sometimes, difficult issues must be addressed head on. The Fair Tax would insure that everyone would have the opportunity to step up and pay for the freedoms they so readily and freely enjoy.

    • Thanks for the comment. I do think it make sense to have more people paying taxes, even if it’s only a little bit, because then citizens have a real sense of ownership of the government rather than a sense of depending on it.

      We’d also see the taxes rather than so many layers of taxation being hidden so we don’t notice the payroll deductions, pay-cuts due to our employers’ taxes and product price increases due to corporate taxes.

  • Fairtax would be better — if it weren’t a complete farce.

    It sounds just great, doesn’t it? I was fooled too. For a while. Then I read the books and asked a few questions.

    Did you know Fairtax is not just a tax on people? It’s biggest source of revenue would not be PEOPLE — but their tax on GOVERNMENT.

    Yes, they pretend, in their fine print, that every city, every county, every state, and even the federal government, will pay massive taxes.

    The “People tax” is not even half of the revenue. Their biggest source of revenue is a tax on government.

    Let’s say that’s even possible (it’s not). Why did they hide t his in their fine print? Why hide your biggest source of revenue in one or two sentences, years apart, in the backs of your books?

    Why indeed.

    The reason they put this “tax the government” nonsense in the fine print, is exactly the reason they did not ask for hearings under oath for 13 years.

    Am I wrong in saying Fairtax pretends to tax the government. First, read their own books —

    “The federal government ITSELF will become a MAJOR taxpayer.” Page 148, The Fairtax Book, by Neal Boortz.

    Okay, federal government becomes a major taxpayer. Doesn’t sound that crazy, right? Well reporters asked Boortz “What are you talking about, taxing the federal government?”

    Boortz wouldnt answer, but said he would explain in ANOTHER book.

    Three years later, he issues the second book. How does he explain this huge tax on the federal government? He just asserts that Fairtax is on city and state government too— and adds that even wages paid by government will be taxed. Look at this.

    “Fairtax treats all governments alike —- federal state and local — as individual consumers.. Under our plan, all government purchases of LABOR, supplies, and services, would be subject to the fairtax.” …Fairtax The Truth Book, page 138.

    And that’s about it!

    They claim all cities will pay this tax, all counties, all states. Okay — how about a list of each city, and how much they will pay?

    How about a list of each state government, and how much they will pay?

    No such list exist. Fairtax is not a real plan, its all BS.

    Why would Fairtax pretend cities and states would pay massive taxes?? Why not put that first and in chapter one, page one?

    Because they are HIDING it. THey know its nonsense.

    They had to pretend that their “math” adds up. Their math is pathetic nonsense. In fact, there is no math. It’s all nonsense.

    But they knew that just taxing PEOPLE would not get near enough revenue. In fact, just taxing people would get less than half of the money they need, if they taxed 23%.

    SO they just pretended they could tax GOVERNMENT spending. That is exactly what they did.

    And they know it. They know their plan is total nonsense.

    http://fairtaxhoax.blogspot.com/

    See my blog about their insane farce, or read any of the good books that expose this farce. Fairtax Fantasy is a good one.

    • Mark, thanks for the comment. The governments already pay taxes, no? There’s payroll taxes, for example. Government employees have taxes withheld with the employee portion paid by the government, their employer, right?

    • Please visit my blog again on Fairtax.

      I have included a discussion with Fairtax spokesman. You might find it interesting how Fairtax defends this massive new tax on city and state government, that they hide in their fine print.

      http://fairtaxhoax.blogspot.com/

      If you think their explanations make sense — let me know.

      Thank you

    • Hi Mark,

      At this point it seems you are just promoting your own blog instead of responding to my post. Are you an advocate of a flat tax?

      I think the flat tax would be a vast improvement over what we have today, where taxation is used not to raise money, but to redistribute money by rewards and punishment for behavior the politicians like.

    • I just started reading your blog post about your “discussion” with a “spokesman.”

      You don’t say who they are, when you had this discussion, and the entire post reads like you’re mockingly putting words in someone else.

      You may be right in your conclusion, but the blog you link to looks so farcical it takes away from your credibility.