It’s Called the Fair Tax, Not the Perfect Tax


Recently on his radio program, Hugh Hewitt raised two objections to the National Retail Sales Tax (i.e. the Fair Tax.) That it would eliminate the charitable giving tax deduction and would eliminate the tax deduction on home mortgage interest.

Taking the first objection, as the Fair Tax only taxes retail sales, there would be no tax on charitable contributions. In neither case are you being taxed on the money you give to charity. And for the 70% of us who don’t itemize our taxes, the Fair Tax would actually be an improvement.

What about Home Mortgage Interest? This is a thornier topic. Under current law, only those who actually itemize get a deduction on Home Mortgage Interest, everyone else is taxed on this income. Again, only 30% are actually taking this deduction.

Under the Fair Tax, the Principal Payments on your mortgage are not taxed. In addition, what we must understand about mortgage interest rates is that, like all other goods and services in the economy, tax is embedded into the Interest rate because banks must pay taxes on the interest income they receive. Without banks having to pay taxes on their interest income, interest rates will drop by 1/4th. Yes, some mortgage interest payments may be taxed as financial mediation service. However, in consideration of a lower interest rate, that payments will be made with 100% of a person’s paycheck, I think taxpayers come out with a pretty good deal.

However, this leads me to a larger point about the way Fair Tax opponents attack the proposal. The argument against the Fair Tax is not that, when all options are weighed, we are better off with the current tax code than with the Fair Tax, but that certain features of the Fair Tax will not benefit people engaged in certain behaviors, or that the plan’s delivery system is flawed. One such objection is the idea of giving every household in the United States a prebate equivalent to the taxes on spending up to the poverty level to ensure that no one is taxed for the basic necessities of life.

Some folks on the right decry the prebate as welfare. I wonder what they would call the Earned Income Tax Credit? Do they prefer a system in which illegal aliens are able to live in the country, take government services, and pay no taxes for it because they and their employers dodge the income tax?

The genius of our leviathan tax code is not its efficiency, or the way it encourages growth while collecting necessary revenue, but how it grants favors to certain groups and individuals in order to curry political favor. Fear that somehow these government bobbles might be taken away causes otherwise sensible people to rally around a cumbersome system that is a dead weight on our economy,

The tax code has become a motherly creature, rewarding us for doing what mother thinks is good (giving to charity, taking out student loans, paying mortgages, going to college) while punishing us for doing what she thinks is bad (investing in stocks and earning dividends, selling stocks and earning a Capital Gains, saving money and earning interest.) The tax code is a cavalcade of special interest breaks meant to control economic behavior according to the dictates of those who pay enough money to lobby Washington.

Lost in this is the ultimate purpose of taxes: To raise revenue in the way that is least harmful to the overall health and growth of the economy. If we are using the tax code as a way to make people buy homes, to social engineer, or benefit some industry over another, we’ve ultimately misused the tax code.

The fundamental question that must be asked is not, is the Fair Tax perfect or if there’s anyone out there who might have to pay more under the Fair Tax than they do under the current code. The question that must be asked: Is the Fair Tax a better system for raising revenue while maintaining a strong economy?

Consider the current flaws of the Income Tax Code:

• Compliance costs of $350 billion per year.
• An untaxed underground economy of illegal aliens, drug dealers, prostitutes, and organized crime.
• Hidden taxes that hide true cost of government from the average American.
• Hidden taxes also weaken U.S. products overseas. American companies imbed the cost of taxes into the price of every product sold. Foreign companies do not.
• Our tax code encourages companies to move their business offshore. Trillions of dollars is put in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid the U.S. Income Tax.
• The corruption of our government in Washington, DC, which has been besieged by lobbyists who have turned the Internal Revenue code into their personal playground.
• The invasion of privacy by government, as well as the threat of identity theft from hundreds of millions of pieces of paper (W2s, 1098s, 1099s, etc.) floating around in the mail with the name, address, and social security number of taxpayers.

It’s time for opponents of the Fair Tax to explain how to fix the problems with our current tax code without fundamental change rather than trying to¬ find some group of people that may not do as well under a Fair Tax. Consider this, the government pays out $64 billion in Home Mortgage Deductions. Without taking anything else on my list into consideration, is $64 billion in Mortgage Deductions worth $350 billion in tax compliance costs? If not, then this piecemeal selective attack on the Fair Tax is irrelevant. And it’s time to have a serious debate.


Category:

RSS feed

33 Comments Leave a comment

There's a simpler response to Hugh Hewitts

Brian Simpson (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 11:23PM EST (link)

criticisms (which could be leveled at the Flat Tax too):

Those credits are distortions of the tax code. Use of the tax code to enact social policy is a dangerous policy. Every credit or deduction has unintended consequences (i.e. making home ownership seem more affordable…worked out great for us, eh?)


| My RedState archive |
Important principles may and must be inflexible. ~ Abraham Lincoln

 

Excellent!

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 7:35AM EST (link)

I like this one.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 8:34AM EST (link)

It’s time for opponents of the Fair Tax to explain how to fix the problems with our current tax code without fundamental change.

Thompson Plan for Tax Relief and New Economic Growth. Item number seven talks about taxpayer choice. This plan could be implemented immediately since it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to implement.

Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

NightTwister, That would be my second choice.

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 9:35AM EST (link)

But it’s still a “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” is it not?

If not, please tell me how it is not. I’m not being a smarta$$ (this time). I really want to know your response.

Yes, it is still a graduated income tax.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 9:40AM EST (link)

But less so than the current model. It’s also extremely simplified, which answers a lot of the arguments of the Fair Tax guys. Also, note the last sentence:

This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

We have to start somewhere reasonable that actually has a chance of getting through Congress. This plan would.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

How is it not a progressive income tax?

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 10:34AM EST (link)

Think hard.

If you look closely at the two plans, Thompson’s flat tax is MUCH more a giveaway welfare program than FairTax. It retains, as an option, to use the current income tax structure, doesn’t it?

A stepping stone in the wrong direction is a stepping stone we need not tread on.

I’ve got another question for you, NT. Where did he get his reduction in the corp. tax rate? If 35 is bad, 27 is better, isn’t it more of a conservative position to have a ZERO corporate tax rate? Why seek the average of all other countries to be competative when you can just go ahead and kick the ever loving crap out of them? The world’s business would view our country as a tax haven instead of a tax sucking leach that it is now.

I’m sure this will upset some RedState readers but IMHO, The flat tax is a bandade on the gapping wound of socialism through taxation and a compromise in conservative thinking.

Please explain how the flat tax can be called conservative other than to say it does not stink as bad as the current tax code?

Progressive, graduated, both are true.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:17PM EST (link)

It’s progress. Fred’s plan has a chance because there’s a choice. Once enough people see the new system is better than the old one, the old one will simply go away because no one uses it.

Progress is better than nothing. You can stand there and scream at the darkness if you want. I’d prefer to bring a little bit of light if I can.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Bring the light.

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:38PM EST (link)

Lets see your plan happen. Like I said, It would be my second choice. If we have to have socialism in tax collection ,lets do set it back to the civil war era.

Why is Thompson’s plan getting vertually no support in Congress? Does Thompson’s plan even match up with the current flat tax bill?

If anyone is screaming into the night, it guess you are right in that it would be FairTax supporters. Flat tax supporters are whispering into the night. If FairTax is going nowhere, Flat tax apears to be backing up.

Marsha Blackburn is a Thompson supporter, get her to present it as a bill maybe? How can I help you get this going?

It's not a priority of mine right now.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:58PM EST (link)

Only so many hours in the day, you know. Tax reform isn’t exactly going to get any traction in the next four years anyway. There are more important things to do like working in my local community to start turning things Red again.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thompson plan keeps lobbyists

KenHoagland (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 9:08AM EST (link)

Adamsweb is right as rain–the current system is predicated on a corrupt tax writing process within the halls of Congress. It is hardly surprising that “reform” plans developed inside Congress retain those destructive elements. But allowing politics and profits to continue to drive the tax code will make every simplification plan, including the Thompson Plan, result in even greater complexity over time.

No tax reform that allows tax lobbyists to “game the system” can stay true to either revenue or taxpayer rate projections. More than half of all lobby expenditures (about $700 million) in Washington, D.C. last year were devoted to gaining favors in the tax code. The effect is corrosive. It’s exactly why the code has 67,500 pages of mind-numbing and often contradictory regulations and why it has become so very expensive to merely complete tax forms.

 

Well-said, and recommended

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 12:48PM EST (link)

The bulk of the objections I see against the FairTax are in the ‘letting the perfect be the enemy of the good’ category.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

 

Several arguments here say the same thing.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:14PM EST (link)

Flax tax is only marginally better than the current system.

They all fail to address the fact that the Fair Tax can’t be implemented without a constitutional amendment (which has zero chance of passing). So instead of looking for a system that is better than the current one, you hold out for your system and talk down every other option.

It’s just like the HLA & FMA supporters that refuse to even consider anything else. They’re never going to happen, and in the mean time you shoot down every other possibility of reform because it’s not enough.

Politics is compromise. You can move towards better solutions without giving up on your ideal. But if you insist on your ideal or nothing, what you will always get is nothing.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Re: Flat Tax

adamsweb (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:34PM EST (link)

Mike Adams an imaginary dialogue with a Fair Tax supporters addressed this point:


Supporter of the Flat Tax of Yesterday (SOFTY): Sorry, I support the flat tax.
Adams: How often do you change your underwear?
SOFTY: What?
Adams: I assume you change your underwear every day?
SOFTY: Yes, what the hell does that have to do with it?
Adams: That means you’ve changed underwear 8036 times in the last 22 years.
SOFTY: And?
Adams: And the I.R.S. has changed the tax code 16,000 times in the last 22 years. They change the tax code twice as often as you change underwear. How long do you think a flat tax would remain flat?
SOFTY: (Silence)
Adams: Would you like to borrow my book?

Thompson’s flatter tax assumes the main problem with our tax code is that it takes too long to figure out our deductions. When filing my taxes, I spend most of my time and effort calculating income.

An actual Flat Tax would address some of the problems in the current system. This silly alternate system just creates the appearance of a solution to folks who opt to use it.

Adam's Blog

You didn't address my comment.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:38PM EST (link)

It’s better than what we have now, and even Fred says it’s a stepping stone. What you propose won’t happen, because a dramatic change like that isn’t going to happen in Congress.

I’d be interested to hear how many currently in Congress support the Fair Tax, and your plan to increase that number.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

By all means! Lets look at the scorecard!

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:51PM EST (link)

Read ‘em and weep.

Currently there are about 76 members of congress supporting FairTax. All but one are republican.

Flattax is at something like 6.

Maybe we should compare the percentage of FairTaxers who lost their seats in comparison to non supporters who lost their seats.

Then compare how many new FairTax supporters got elected verses how many new non fairtax supporters got elected for a first term.

I think you will find that you lose this arguement all the way around.

76 / 535.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:56PM EST (link)

Sounds like we’re going to have the current system a while longer.

And I’d venture a guess that more than 6 would be in favor of the system proposed by Fred, but I don’t have any data to back that up, so understand it’s just speculation.

In any case, it’s certain that nothing is going to change in the next four years except the percentage of my income that the government is going to allow me to keep.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 
 

Fair Tax=No Constitutional Amendment Required

adamsweb (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:36PM EST (link)

There would be no constitutional Amendment required up front to get the Fair Tax passed, so this point is irrelevant.

The problem with other proposals like Thompson’s timid plan is that there are major vital problems left completely unsolved, unaddressed, and untouched by it.

Adam's Blog

Fair Tax=Constitutional Amendment Required.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:39PM EST (link)

If you think for one second I’m willing to allow congress another way to tax me without removing the existing one at the same time, you’re nuts. I’d fight that harder than I fought the Shamnesty bill last year.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

So...

adamsweb (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:49PM EST (link)

You want a Constitutional Amendment, but it’s not actually needed. Right now, the government could decide to impose a Sales Tax without eliminating any other tax. Regardless of the Fair Tax, Congress already has the power.

Repeal of the 16th Amendment is a great long-term goal, but until we have another method of taxation that people have actually been able to try.

Adam's Blog

No thanks.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:53PM EST (link)

And I’m not terribly worried about it. There are enough conservatives like me that would never go for it, not to mention support from the other side is basically nil.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 

I'll keep repeating this until one of you that keeps pushing this acknowledges it

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 1:59PM EST (link)

The current plan is to pass the FairTax with a proviso that says that if the Sixteenth isn’t repealed 3 years after the FairTax goes into effect, then the FairTax is repealed and we go back to the old system.

Please explain why this isn’t good enough for you, or STFU about the Sixteenth already.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

Settle down (nt)

Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 2:03PM EST (link)

.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

 

Sure, I'll explain.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 2:14PM EST (link)

I’m not willing to agree to another method of taxation unless the existing one is eliminated at the same time. Sunset provisions won’t work for me, because they’re too easy to eliminate later. Congress will just say they need to do it a little longer and before you know it it’s permanent. I’m just not willing to take that chance, so I will fight against this if it’s proposed by Congress.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

5

Bill S (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 2:19PM EST (link)

.

“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins

 

But it is eliminated, just not constitutionally barred

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 2:45PM EST (link)

Passing the FairTax will eliminate all the other methods of taxation, it just won’t constitutionally bar them immediately doing it this way– it’ll take another three years.

What you’re actually asking for something that’s impossible to happen (repealing a constitutional amendment takes a lot of time, and no one will agree to repealing the Sixteenth until a better system is already in place), and then saying that passing the FairTax is impossible. In other words, you can never be satisfied with the FairTax no matter what, which makes all your stated objections nothing more than a feint.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

It's a reasonable argument.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 3:07PM EST (link)

The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t really matter much to me.

This isn’t the only reason I’m against the Fair Tax, btw. I’ll never agree to the prebate, for instance.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Moving goalposts

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 5:16PM EST (link)

You said:

I’m not willing to agree to another method of taxation unless the existing one is eliminated at the same time.

This is exactly what the FairTax does: it eliminates all the other taxes in favor of One Tax Only.

If you want to change your objection to that the existing one must not only be eliminated, but constitutionally prohibited from returning, you can do that, but you are in fact moving the goalposts, immaterial of whether I like it or not.

Your arguments against the prebate seem equally muddle-headed; last I saw from you, you were trying to call it welfare which is silly at best.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

I *never* called the Fair Tax welfare.

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 5:34PM EST (link)

Not once.

I have many problems with the fair tax. My biggest objections are giving the government another way to tax (federal sales tax) that does not currently exist, and the prebate. My objections not limited to those reasons just because they’re the only ones I’ve voiced in this discussion.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Ok, so nix the welfare bit

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 7:23PM EST (link)

Must’ve been mbecker908 that insisted on calling it welfare. I mistakenly thought that you actually had advanced an argument against the prebate, instead of just proclaiming that you don’t like it.

I’ve still knocked down every argument you’ve posted so far, using your own words. Do you want to go quietly, or do you want me to knock down more?

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

In your mind, perhaps. -nt-

NightTwister (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 7:55PM EST (link)

-nt-

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The "current plan" is unacceptable because...

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 5:43PM EST (link)

1. What NT said.

2. I do not trust Congress. Period.

3. You’re going to put the country through major dislocations with tax laws, effective putting tax accountancy & legal services out of business (which I am all for), for three years. The constitutional changes fail and we’re in deep stuff because the tax professionals are gone.

4. NEVER pass laws based on Congress acting in good faith at a later date. See the immigration law that Reagan signed that gave 1.5MM illegals amnesty in return for tough employer sanctions and border security to be passed later. Twenty years and we’re still waiting.

Knocking your tower of blocks down

Finrod (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 7:36PM EST (link)

1. So you’re telling me that you, like NT, can’t tell the difference between repealing a law and repealing a constitutional amendment?

2. Neither do I. Your point?

3. I put the odds of the FairTax being passed, then repealed 3 years later at pretty much nil. How many Congressmen are really going to stand in the way of repealing the Sixteenth after 2 years of everyone getting their full paycheck and not having to file tax forms? It would be political suicide, and if Congressmen are good at one thing, it’s avoiding political suicide.

4. Any tax reform can be bolloxed by a future Congress. Using that as an excuse to pick one tax reform plan over another is inane.

Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?

No Finrod. Reading comprehension is NOT your friend.

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, December 8th at 8:32PM EST (link)

1. (From above) I’ve never called the prebate a “welfare payment”. What I said was that unless the language is iron clad (and there ain’t no such animal in DC), the Congress could use a mechanism already in place to increase payments to low income groups. You’re calling it welfare. I’m calling it Congress doing redistribution.
2. Yes I can tell the difference between repealing and a constitutional amendment. And I explained the problems with attempting to repeal a law like you’re proposing. It’s “too big to fail”. It won’t be repealed. It will just be “messed with”.
3. My point is that if you think for one second that this “fix” you’ve come up with to avoid a constitutional amendment will work you’re a damn fool. You obviously trust the Congress or you’d see the folly of this proposal.
4. Your point about repeal makes my point. And the problem isn’t stated correctly. First of all it takes 50% +1 to pass the legislation. It takes 2/3 of both houses to approve a constitutional amendment. You could pass the legislation with 51 senators. You could spend three years getting another 10 on board. You’ve still got no amendment. Now what? Or, let’s say that you get 2/3 of both houses. You’ve still got to get 3/4 of the state legislatures, most of whom are going to have to restructure their revenue streams. You’re living in a dream world.
5. I know that any tax reform can be bolloxed by another Congress. That’s my issue. I’m in favor of real tax reform. A plan that is well thought out and that people have paid attention to the details of. This one, at least as you’re flacking it, is NOT it.