EXACTLY. One of the principles of the Fair tax is that it sunsets if the 16th amendment is not repealed by the states. Then we go back to the politicized, lobbied, loopholed, regressive, and byzantine tax code we have now.
We should also get rid of the existing IRS and require the expungement of all of its records. They will no longer be relevant to tax collection or any other lawful or legitimate purpose.
A consumption tax does not require the government to be deeply into your personal finances. That is a big additional benefit.
Taxation is theft. In principle, I’m against tariffs, however in practice, they are a tool. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. If it is in our national security interest to keep certain businesses on-shore (such as microchips, energy, or commodity production), then we are justified in using tariffs against their foreign competitors. Yes, that is akin to a tax and are really only justified to be used to prevent emergencies from devolving into catastrophes. Please understand, If China takes over Taiwan (microchips) and cuts off export of rate earth metals, we are pretty much totally screwed.
We need a government and a strong defense. We need fresh water and electricity. Hence, it's not theft because there are legit reasons to pay some tax and have some common things.
Why aren't businesses here? Mostly cost of labor which is heavily influenced by government policy. What if we changed government policy, how do the costs change?
One way--that has risks--is to do it incrementally. Start by implementing a 5% VAT (I assume you are going to tax both goods and services?) and eliminate the equivalent in income taxes from the bottom up. So if we make a trillion in Vat, then eliminate a trillion from the income tax table. To make it politically viable, push the taxable brackets upward, thus providing more "free income" to more people in the working and middle classes (and this obviously applies to the starting point of upper class as well). Every couple of years -- in order to avoid shocking the system -- keep raising it until it is gone. The people below the threshold send in a postcard to the IRS until the agency is disbanded.
Think about all the benefits. Increased employment. Lower inflation. Decreased consumption, and less waste. People will waste less if it costs more.
We live in a consumption-oriented economy, and this policy changes it to an income-oriented society, combined with savings and better utilization of existing products. Instead of throwing good things in a landfill, they could be repaired or used longer.
But, politics. I would imagine the Democrats would be most opposed, simply because it means less control for the government. And we know that Democrats don't like not having control over everything.
I remember back in the early 2000's and late 90's that Neal Boortz (of rightwing talk radio fame) pushed the Fair Tax almost every day. I was on board, and still am, but I think only a few libertarians like Rand Paul would even consider it.
How do we realistically make this a mainstream political idea?
no VAT. Scrap the entire Federal tax system and implement a consumption tax. Rip off the band-aid. so far some Dems are vehemently against (Brookings Institution for example) but some are not. The Retail Lobby has been a strong opponent.
We might be saying the same thing, but have differences in semantics. So I can understand you properly...what is the difference between a VAT and a consumption tax?
Ok, I had forgotten that about VAT's -- it's the value added to any good that is taxed at each stage of production and sale. We are saying the same thing, in that I support a consumption tax.
What to do about state and local taxes, then? Anything? Sales taxes are already in the neighborhood of 10% at most places.
Jefferey, if it were 1917, or if we were starting a brand new country, I would be 1000% for a consumption tax. However, I have paid income taxes on all my income and saved it so that I can spend it in my retirement. Putting in a consumption tax today would mean I paid taxes on everything I earned, and now I would have to pay taxes again when I spend it. It would double tax (over a lifetime) people who saved for the future with after income-tax dollars. Other than that, it’s a great system, just completely unfair to those nearing retirement. Also, wherever this has been done in the world it ends up creating both income and VAT taxes.
If you saved outside of an IRA, that is true. If you saved in an IRA or some other tax deferred instrument, then you don't pay tax to withdraw, but pay tax to spend. Most people have saved inside an IRA for retirement.
Agree with your argument about savings outside of retirement. But, my guess is that is not a high percentage of people, or they are so wealthy it doesn't really make a difference.
The other plus to the consumption tax would be no estate or inheritance taxes. This would be a net positive for the older generations that have paid income taxes their whole lives. They would be able to pass assets to younger generations without extensive tax planning.
Only switch to a consumption tax if we repeal the 16th Amendment. Otherwise we will get BOTH.
EXACTLY. One of the principles of the Fair tax is that it sunsets if the 16th amendment is not repealed by the states. Then we go back to the politicized, lobbied, loopholed, regressive, and byzantine tax code we have now.
Worth a try.
We should also get rid of the existing IRS and require the expungement of all of its records. They will no longer be relevant to tax collection or any other lawful or legitimate purpose.
A consumption tax does not require the government to be deeply into your personal finances. That is a big additional benefit.
The FairTax.org plan does exactly that
Great post Mr Carter! I love the comments section almost as much as the post! Showing your inner Milton Friedmon?
I don't buy it. Creating a consumption tax will NOT be the end of the Income Tax. You're naive about politicians.
Taxation is theft. In principle, I’m against tariffs, however in practice, they are a tool. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. If it is in our national security interest to keep certain businesses on-shore (such as microchips, energy, or commodity production), then we are justified in using tariffs against their foreign competitors. Yes, that is akin to a tax and are really only justified to be used to prevent emergencies from devolving into catastrophes. Please understand, If China takes over Taiwan (microchips) and cuts off export of rate earth metals, we are pretty much totally screwed.
We need a government and a strong defense. We need fresh water and electricity. Hence, it's not theft because there are legit reasons to pay some tax and have some common things.
Why aren't businesses here? Mostly cost of labor which is heavily influenced by government policy. What if we changed government policy, how do the costs change?
I agree.
But how to do it?
One way--that has risks--is to do it incrementally. Start by implementing a 5% VAT (I assume you are going to tax both goods and services?) and eliminate the equivalent in income taxes from the bottom up. So if we make a trillion in Vat, then eliminate a trillion from the income tax table. To make it politically viable, push the taxable brackets upward, thus providing more "free income" to more people in the working and middle classes (and this obviously applies to the starting point of upper class as well). Every couple of years -- in order to avoid shocking the system -- keep raising it until it is gone. The people below the threshold send in a postcard to the IRS until the agency is disbanded.
Think about all the benefits. Increased employment. Lower inflation. Decreased consumption, and less waste. People will waste less if it costs more.
We live in a consumption-oriented economy, and this policy changes it to an income-oriented society, combined with savings and better utilization of existing products. Instead of throwing good things in a landfill, they could be repaired or used longer.
But, politics. I would imagine the Democrats would be most opposed, simply because it means less control for the government. And we know that Democrats don't like not having control over everything.
I remember back in the early 2000's and late 90's that Neal Boortz (of rightwing talk radio fame) pushed the Fair Tax almost every day. I was on board, and still am, but I think only a few libertarians like Rand Paul would even consider it.
How do we realistically make this a mainstream political idea?
no VAT. Scrap the entire Federal tax system and implement a consumption tax. Rip off the band-aid. so far some Dems are vehemently against (Brookings Institution for example) but some are not. The Retail Lobby has been a strong opponent.
We might be saying the same thing, but have differences in semantics. So I can understand you properly...what is the difference between a VAT and a consumption tax?
VATs are often calculated every time a good changes hands (from what I understand); this would be a national sales tax and only on the final sale.
Ok, I had forgotten that about VAT's -- it's the value added to any good that is taxed at each stage of production and sale. We are saying the same thing, in that I support a consumption tax.
What to do about state and local taxes, then? Anything? Sales taxes are already in the neighborhood of 10% at most places.
State and and local is up to state and local. This is Federal.
Jefferey, if it were 1917, or if we were starting a brand new country, I would be 1000% for a consumption tax. However, I have paid income taxes on all my income and saved it so that I can spend it in my retirement. Putting in a consumption tax today would mean I paid taxes on everything I earned, and now I would have to pay taxes again when I spend it. It would double tax (over a lifetime) people who saved for the future with after income-tax dollars. Other than that, it’s a great system, just completely unfair to those nearing retirement. Also, wherever this has been done in the world it ends up creating both income and VAT taxes.
If you saved outside of an IRA, that is true. If you saved in an IRA or some other tax deferred instrument, then you don't pay tax to withdraw, but pay tax to spend. Most people have saved inside an IRA for retirement.
Agree with your argument about savings outside of retirement. But, my guess is that is not a high percentage of people, or they are so wealthy it doesn't really make a difference.
The other plus to the consumption tax would be no estate or inheritance taxes. This would be a net positive for the older generations that have paid income taxes their whole lives. They would be able to pass assets to younger generations without extensive tax planning.
No tax of any kind that the Feds use right now. None.