-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Fair Tax talk is sweeping the land, but how ‘fair,’ really, is such a tax?Tue, 06/20/2006 - 5:48pm
By: Letters to the ...
Earlier [last] week I attended a presentation by a proponent of the “Fair Tax” plan. The basic idea of the plan is to replace the federal income tax (individual and corporate), social security tax, and estate tax with a tax similar to a sales tax. The presenter claimed that the tax would be revenue neutral at a rate of 23 percent of each gross dollar collected (the equivalent to a 30 percent rate added to purchases). There would be a “pre-bate” sent to all taxpayers equal to the tax that would be paid on purchases equal to the poverty income level. The tax would apply to essentially all purchases of new tangible property and services in the United States. I came away from the presentation convinced that the “Fair Tax” is unfair. The largest single problem with the “Fair Tax” plan is that it is undoubtedly regressive as compared with our current income tax system. The presenters tried to portray the proposal as a progressive tax, but they are clearly mistaken. They used a chart indicating that higher levels of spending are taxed at higher effective rates, because the portion of spending that is not taxed due to the pre-bate becomes proportionally less of the total as spending rises. However, if you were to look at projected tax burdens under the plan as a percentage of income (rather than spending), you would see that high income individuals pay at a lower rate under the proposal than lower and middle income individuals. This is due to the fact that higher income people spend a lower portion of their income on consumable items that are taxable under the plan. Some argue that this is appropriate, and that progressive income taxes are bad because they “penalize success.” Shouldn’t citizens pay for the government services based on a quid pro quo basis? Frankly, I think the answer is no. But, even if you accept that they should, individuals with higher incomes are those that have most benefited from our government. Think about it. The ability to make money in our society is predicated on good government. Capital markets are regulated by the SEC, our workforce is educated in public schools, law enforcement provides security from theft, infrastructure is needed for transportation, intangible property laws foster innovation, the environment and labor rights are protected by regulation – the list could go on. If you do not think that successful businesspeople have benefited from government, look at how businesses fare in countries that do not have good government services. On the other hand, our system should reward hard work and success; and, high marginal income tax rates lead to inefficiencies by thwarting free market mechanisms. There is a balance to be made between the taxes necessary for good government and not stifling economic activity. It seems to me that the United States has been an economic success in large part because we have historically done a good job of balancing these two goals. Another reason for our success is the presence of a large educated middle class. As opposed to countries that have a pronounced division of wealth between the rich and the poor, we have been able to sustain a stable democracy and a society that provides the basis for success. A progressive income tax and an estate tax help to maintain a large middle class. Some disparagingly call it “income redistribution,” but the fact of the matter is that the result is fairer and more effective for all of us than totally unbridled capitalism. If anything, our current system is not progressive enough due to the regressive nature of the Social Security tax. Unfortunately, over the past 25 years our county has been moving away from the very things that have lead to our success. Remember the “trickle down” theory. The claim was made that by reducing the taxes on high income people, the deficit would decrease because the economy would do so well. The results: 1) the federal debt has increased from under $1 trillion in 1979 to over $8 trillion now, 2) poverty levels have increased from 11.7 percent in 1979 to 12.7 percent in 2004, and 3) the division of wealth has increased. The claims of spurring economic growth made by the proponents of the “Fair Tax” plan sound a lot like those of the trickle down theory. I suspect the result would be more of the same – the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Ed Outlaw |