I had so many comments on my Fair Tax post that I wanted to respond to some of the points made:

First, several people made the point that Europe has a Value Added Tax (VAT) that is more than the 10% figure that I quoted. All of the research that I read made a distinction between the VAT and a national retail sales tax like the Fair Tax. This distinction is based on the mechanics of the tax. The value added tax looks at what a firm adds to the value of a product where a national sales tax is an excise tax levied at the point of sale. The end result looks similar because the VAT is passed on to the consumer. However, the VAT requires firms to report the value added at each stage of production. A national retail sales tax does not require any such reporting other than that the national rate has been applied. The figure I used looked just at those countries using a national retail sales tax and did not include those countries using a VAT.

Second, several readers expressed frustration at the current tax system and argued that we are essentially paying the same rate as what the Fair Tax would impose. That may be true, but I don’t understand how that merits scrapping the current system. If the Fair Tax does the exact same thing, why should switch? The tie goes toward stability, does it not? People have planned, not just in the short term, but in the long term for the tax benefits of the current system. Revolutionizing the way we tax would upset the expectations of a millions of Americans and businesses. Thus, doing something that drastic requires not just generalized frustration, but serious injustice. Generally, I think that frustration with the current tax system has made people over-eager to do something else. I don’t deny that the current system has its flaws. Indeed, it should be flatter and simpler. However, taking the extreme position of overhauling what we have and disturbing the expectations of those who are paying taxes seems unwise to me.

More rebuttals to come

Labels: fair tax, mike huckabee, Taxes

I want to disclaim at the beginning that I am no tax policy expert. Yet, I think that the concepts argued for and against the “fair tax” as proposed by Mike Huckabee are simple enough that most people should be able to understand them.

Mike Huckabee describes on his campaign web site his version of the Fair Tax:

When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.

The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.

Our current progressive tax system penalizes us for working harder and becoming more successful. As we climb the ladder, the government lurks on each rung, hungry for a bigger bite out of our earnings. The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend - it is revenue neutral.

There are a lot of different points to be made. Easily dismissed is the claim that the Fair Tax will release us from pain and unfairness. Such a silly claim gets at the unseriousness of the Huckabee campaign in general. More substantively, only six countries have ever adopted retail sales taxes at rates of 10% or more; none do now. 58 Fla. L. Rev. 1043, 1048; Joel Slemrod, Presentation to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform: The Costs of Tax Complexity (Mar. 3, 2005), available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/meetings/ docs/slemrod 03032005.ppt.

Huckabee next says that all will get a monthly rebate for purchases up to the poverty line. This argues against one of the main points that he promotes in arguing for the Fair Tax: administrative ease. Huckabee has argued for abolishing the IRS, but it seems that he would have to replace it with some other agency by which to mail out every American’s monthly rebate check. The type of money being passed through the mail would also invite all sorts of criminal behavior (remember how well the debit cards went after Katrina?).

Huckebee also says that the Fair Tax will create positive incentives for saving. That is probably true. Through a combination of zero tax on savings and the dramatic increase of goods after the Fair Tax is enacted, people are likely to refrain from spending. The Fair Tax creates the incentive to withhold income from being put back into the economy. How this will affect the economy only an economist could predict, but the incentives seem to lead to a slowing of the economy as people withhold their dollars from the marketplace. However, eventually, even savings will be taxed as they are spent. The savings argument is misleading because it really only marks a delay in taxation, not an abolition of the tax on savings.

Huckabee argues that both taxes are progressive. However, the Fair Tax is difficult to make progressive. Since the tax applies to all at the point of sale, regardless of economic status, it would generally appear to be either a flat or regressive tax. The single rate of taxation on purchases hits low-income people harder than high-income people because the purchases are a larger proportion of the low-income person’s wealth. Higher income people are able to save a larger portion of their earnings. Thus, even with the rebates he proposes, for anyone above the poverty line, the tax is regressive. To make it progressive, Congress would have to add in additional complexity Graduated tax rates, differential rates, or higher rates all would lead to increasingly complex taxpayer behavior and legislative and administrative responses. 88 Calif. L. Rev. 2095, 2141.

In sum, and these certainly aren’t all the points to be made about the Fair Tax system, the Fair Tax likely does little to improve the current tax system and likely does harm. It does little to improve the complexity or administrative burden. It only shifts the time of taxation from when it was produced to when it was consumed. Finally, it likely dulls economic growth by creating a disincentive to spend.

Beyond its inherent political impracticability, the Fair Tax should be rejected. The better alternative, and the more realistic one, is the one Mitt Romney has proposed: lower marginal rates, end the death tax, end taxes on savings, and lower corporate taxes. These things combined will do more for the economy and the nation than the enactment of the Fair Tax.

Labels: fair tax, mike huckabee, Taxes

I think that the fair tax is a pie-in-the-sky idea. Generally, I think that the idea of getting the tax code simpler and flatter is a good idea. However, I don't see how the fair tax accomplishes that. When pressed on the specifics of how it would affect low income Americans or other special interests who now pay no taxes, they talk about prebates. Once we've gotten to that point, however, there is little stopping the government from recreating any or all the tax exemptions now currently in the tax code. Thus, we have done little to affect who is paying taxes, but only shifted how they pay it. How that helps the tax situation is beyond me.

Proponents also argue that the national sales tax would help tax black market activities. James Taranto over at Opinion Journal looks further into this claim:

"Ask Mike Huckabee about his tax plan and he'll talk about pimps and prostitutes," the Concord (N.H.) Monitor reports. Not a bad lead. The story continues:

The Republican presidential candidate often says that one of the selling points of his plan to replace the federal income tax with a 23 percent sales tax is that it would force those who deal in cash to pay taxes.

"You end the underground economy," Huckabee said at a recent luncheon for the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. "Illegals, prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, drug dealers--everybody pays taxes."

Huh? Does Huckabee really think prostitutes are going to collect sales taxes and pass them on to the government? Apparently not:

William Ahern, spokesman for The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group in Washington, D.C., said even Huckabee's claim about pimps and prostitutes isn't true.

"Say (a drug dealer) spends $100,000 on a tricked-out Hummer," Ahern said. "Instead of just paying the local car tax or sales tax, he would be paying, according to the Fair Tax, the full 23 percent (tax).

"But he won't be collecting the Fair Tax on his sale of drugs," Ahern added. "You and me, the two secret heroin addicts who are pouring our wages into the coffers of this drug dealer instead of making mortgage payments . . . we avoid paying the Fair Tax by buying heroin instead of taxable goods."

To put it another way, under Huckabee's plan, johns and drug addicts would pay for sex and drugs with pretax income.

Labels: fair tax, mike huckabee