Tax Reform

I am willing to consider reforms of the tax system. I have attended rallies for the "flat tax," the "fair tax," and a few others. One thing they have in common is that EVERYONE in attendance (that I talked to) thinks he or she will pay less under the proposed new system, despite claims that the proposals are revenue neutral. The rich, middle-class, and poor all think they will pay less. But they cannot all be right if the new tax will generate the same revenue as the taxes it replaces. So who is being deceived? My bet (and that of most economists) is that the poor and middle-class are being mislead (again). The wealthy and powerful have a potent propaganda machine.

The National Retail Sales Tax: What Would the Rate Have To Be?

In "The National Retail Sales Tax: What Would the Rate Have To Be?", William G. Gale argues the tax rate would need to be 44%:

This report addresses a technical issue regarding the national retail sales tax: What would the required tax rate have to be? According to the report, the four principal results are:

First, as long as real federal revenues and real federal spending are maintained during the transition to a sales tax, the required sales tax rate would not depend on whether federal purchases are subject to tax or whether consumer prices rise after the sales tax is imposed.

Second, H.R. 25, a recent legislative proposal, would replace the existing income, corporate, payroll, and estate and gift taxes with a 23 percent tax-inclusive (30 percent tax-exclusive) sales tax on almost all private consumption, a significant portion 23 percent (tax-inclusive), the revenue loss would exceed $7 trillion over the next decade relative to current law.

Third, with plausible allowances for avoidance, evasion, and tax exemptions for some private consumption and some state and local purchases, both the required tax rates and the revenue loss from imposing a sales tax at a 23 percent tax-inclusive rate climb significantly higher.

Fourth, the commonly cited 23 percent tax-inclusive rate in H.R. 25 was derived using a set of assumptions about changes in the price level that are not consistent with each other and that lead to an estimated tax rate that is systematically and substantially too low.

Book Reviews: 'The Fairtax Book' and 'Flat Tax Revolution'

The New York Times review of 'The Fairtax Book' and 'Flat Tax Revolution' says:

November 13, 2005
'The Fairtax Book' and 'Flat Tax Revolution': 1040EZ — Really, Really EZ

By Joel Slemrod
Almost everyone agrees that our tax system could be a lot better - simpler, fairer and less of a drag on the economy. However, opinions about how to fix it vary widely. Earlier this month, a bipartisan reform panel created by President Bush presented two reform options that straddle the standard liberal and conservative positions. While the headlines focused on the reduction or elimination of popular breaks like the mortgage interest deduction, the report also suggested fundamental changes in how business and capital income are to be taxed.

These two new books, both coming from the right, suggest that merely reforming the current system is too timid. The correct policy medicine, the authors say, is to junk the income tax entirely and replace it with a consumption tax with a single tax rate for all Americans.

In "The FairTax Book," the syndicated radio host Neal Boortz and Representative John Linder, Republican of Georgia, claim that replacing all federal taxes - income, payroll and estate taxes - with a national sales tax would increase the average household's purchasing power by about 20 percent, end the need for the I.R.S. and turn April 15 into just another spring day. "Once the FairTax takes effect," they declare, "you'll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes - and you'll be paying just about the same price for T-shirts and other consumer goods and services that you were paying before the FairTax."

For a book that claims in its introduction to be "about honesty," this statement falls far short. No reputable economist of any political stripe would support it. The honest truth is that replacing the current tax system with any system that raises the same amount of revenue (as Boortz and Linder claim their plan does) may make us better off, but only by redirecting our resources away from dealing with complex filing requirements and improving our incentives to work, save and innovate - not by creating the kind of free-lunch miracle suggested here.

As for "saying goodbye" to the I.R.S., the authors' plan does so only by passing the responsibility for tax collection to the states. And what a responsibility it would be. In order to fully replace all federal taxes, the sales tax would probably have to be at least 40 percent - possibly even more than twice the 23 percent rate the authors claim, and certainly far higher than anything ever levied by any country. The enforcement problems would be different than those the I.R.S. now faces, but they would not necessarily be smaller. Even at an average rate of around 5 percent, state sales taxes are difficult to administer. Apparently the authors have not talked much to administrators who have to deal with, among other things, ineligible people declaring themselves to be businesses to qualify for the business exemption.

Oh, yes, Boortz and Linder's claim that their plan would make April 15 another ordinary day is true, because no individuals - just retail businesses - would have to file tax returns. Instead, every day is tax day as people pay their taxes on every trip to the grocery store, the car dealer or even the doctor, since the FairTax base extends to services that nearly all states exempt.

There's one more problem. Moving to a national sales tax would drastically shift the tax burden away from high-income families and toward low-income families. To remedy this, under the FairTax plan the government would send each taxpayer a monthly "prebate" based on family size, which would amount to $492 per month for a married couple with two children. But Boortz and Linder offer few details about the costs and complications of this vast system of transfers.

Steve Forbes is also pushing a tax plan, one he claims would "free America" from "the tyranny of the federal tax code." At first glance, his "flat tax" - which he has been pushing at least since his unsuccessful 1996 presidential campaign - looks like the current income tax, in that both businesses and individuals would file an annual return. But there are some big differences. Under the flat tax, there would be no deduction for mortgage interest, state and local taxes or charitable contributions. A 17 percent rate would apply to all taxable income, whether the taxpayer is Bill Gates, Steve Forbes or the mechanic who fixes their cars. Investment income would not be taxed at all under the individual tax, which by itself benefits predominantly higher-income taxpayers. The flat tax would indeed represent a significant simplification over the current system. (On the book's cover, Forbes is shown brandishing a postcard printed with "The Steve Forbes Flat Tax Form" - though, to be fair, the current 1040EZ would fit on the same card.) And cleaning up the tax base would, on balance, allow the economy to operate more efficiently and reduce the extent to which one's tax burden depended on arguably irrelevant factors such as whether one rented or owned a home. These benefits, however, have nothing to do with having a single tax rate. In fact, one of the architects of the flat tax, Robert E. Hall of Stanford University, now favors a plan, known as the X-Tax, that would apply a graduated rate structure to this simplified tax base.

Aspects of the flat tax deserve serious consideration. Unfortunately, Forbes's book does not provide it. Instead, like "The FairTax Book," it promises a free lunch. "Everyone" gets a tax cut under his plan. To guarantee that sound-bite feature, he would give people the choice of computing taxes under the flat tax or staying with the old tax system. That stunning concession guarantees that the nine million words of the current tax code and regulations would not go away after all but would be expanded by hundreds of thousands of new words laying out the flat tax rules and, inevitably, the new rules governing the consequences of going back and forth between the two systems. And then there's the hundreds of billions of dollars that Forbes's plan would add to the deficit. Forbes says that his plan will stimulate the economy so much that the apparent revenue shortfall doesn't materialize. If only this were true. Serious analyses suggest that a flat tax would be good for the economy, but would not produce the economic nirvana needed to close the huge revenue gap.

Tax reform deserves objective analysis of the sort these books do not provide. Fortunately, the president's tax reform panel has done a much better job. They considered the retail sales tax, but dismissed it. Both the proposals they outline simplify the tax base, though they retain a reduced mortgage interest break (in the form of a flat credit rather than an itemized deduction, which reduces the tilting of the benefits toward wealthier taxpayers). Both retain a graduated personal rate structure and try to maintain the current distribution of the tax burden. As the criticism following the panel report reminds us, truly revenue-neutral tax reform creates winners and losers, and the losers cry louder than the winners sing. To be sure, the Bush administration's tax cuts have in no way prepared Americans for fiscal sacrifice.

Contemplation of radical tax alternatives is exhilarating, and could help to avoid the kind of loophole-to-loophole combat that tax war veterans recall from 1986, the last time we made wholesale changes in the system. But much progress toward these goals - including eliminating the need for most Americans to file tax returns - can be made within the basic framework of the current system.

These books, to use the language on the jacket of "Flat Tax Revolution," are calls to join a crusade. We'd be better off just starting a conversation.

Joel Slemrod is a professor of economics at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and the author, with Jon Bakija, of "Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Debate Over Taxes."

Proposals for Tax Reform - Value-added Tax and National Sales Tax (Fair Tax)

President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. Final Report. Washington: GPO, 2005.

Options for Tax Reform - A Proposal fro the Cato Institute

"Options for Tax Reform" by Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, claims:

President Bush has established an advisory panel to study federal tax reform options. The panel is headed by former senators Connie Mack of Florida and John Breaux of Louisiana. Congressional leaders, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom Delay, have also pledged their support for reform.

Enacting a major tax reform bill will be a challenge, but the president has been remarkably successful with his tax agenda so far. Income tax rates have been reduced, dividend and capital gains taxes have been cut, and the tax rules on retirement savings vehicles have been liberalized.

However, the tax system remains terribly complex and inefficient. The number of pages of federal tax rules has increased 48 percent in the past decade. The complex alternative minimum tax will hit about 35 million households by the end of the decade if not repealed. The high-rate U.S. corporate income tax is under growing pressure as global investment capital has become more mobile.

This study looks at possible changes to address those problems. It identifies three goals for tax reform: simplification, efficiency, and limited government. The latter goal focuses on tax code features such as visibility and equal
treatment that cultivate an understanding of the high cost of government.

This study examines reform options including a flat tax, a national retail sales tax, and a savings-exempt tax in reference to those goals. It also proposes a new option: a “dual-rate income tax.” This revenue-neutral option would convert the individual income tax to a two-rate system that eliminates most deductions and credits and allows nearly all families to pay tax at a low 15 percent rate. A 27 percent rate would kick in for earnings above $90,000 (single) and $180,000 (married).

To promote growth, the maximum individual rate on dividends, interest, and capital gains would be 15 percent. The corporate tax rate would be dropped to 15 percent and interest made non-deductible. These changes would equalize and cut the combined top income and payroll tax rates on wages, dividends, interest, and small business income to just under 30 percent, compared with between 35 and 45 percent under current law.

The dual-rate tax plan would retain the standard deduction, an expanded personal exemption, and the earned income tax credit. The plan would create a simpler and more efficient tax code within the structure of today’s system and may be just the type of tax plan that the president’s advisory panel is looking for. ###

The Flat Tax

The Flat Tax

An alternative to the current individual income tax structure is the flat tax. The flat tax has been proposed since 1983 by various people, including Congressman Richard K. Armey, who was a Republican representative from Texas from 1985 to 2003 and Malcolm S. "Steve" Forbes, Jr., a billionaire candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency in 1996 and 2000.

Under most flat tax proposals, the current individual and corporate income tax structures would be replaced by a system in which every taxpayer is subject to the same marginal tax rate.

Proponents of a flat tax system argue that it would simplify the income tax structure because most deductions would be eliminated. A simpler tax system would have a smaller administrative burden and thus would be more efficient.

Opponents of a flat tax argue that it would shift a significant amount of the tax burden from the wealthy to middle class Americans. Thus, they think a flat tax system does not have enough vertical equity. Vertical equity is the principle that taxpayers with a greater ability to pay taxes should pay larger amounts. Vertical equity is a justification for wealthy people to pay more in taxes than poor people.

Under "H.R.1040", the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal of 1997, every worker would pay 17% of what is left of their total annual income from all wages, salaries, and pensions after subtracting a personal allowance. The only four allowances would be:
- $23,200 for a married couple filing jointly- $14,850 for a single person who is the head of a household- $11,600 for a single person who is not the head of a household, - $5,300 for each dependent child
No other tax credits or deductions would be used. The entire tax return form would be simple enough to fit on a postcard.
Source: U.S. Rep. Dick Armey's flat tax summary web site.
Because of the personal allowances, taxpayers would not pay the same percentage of their income in tax. For example, Rep. Armey suggested that given the exemptions shown above, a family of four earning $25,000 would owe no tax. A family of four earning $50,000 would owe 6%, and a family of four earning $200,000 would owe14% in tax.

The flat tax proposal would also eliminate the marriage penalty, almost double the deduction for dependent children, and end multiple taxation of savings.

Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes would not be affected under the flat tax proposal. Social Security benefits would not be taxed.

Businesses would take their total income, subtract total expenses and if the result is a positive amount (profit), pay tax on that amount at a rate of 17%. Expenses would include purchases of goods and services, capital equipment, structures, land, wages and contributions to retirement plans.

Critics of the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal note that much of the complexity of the current system would remain. Businesses would still need to withhold taxes from workers’ wages and record keeping for businesses would not be significantly reduced. Some people would still have an incentive to cheat on their taxes.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal would have added $138 billion to the annual budget deficit (in 1996 dollars). Even at the break even rate of 20.82%, Rep. Armey’s plan would increase taxes sharply on all income groups except those earning more than $200,000 a year. (Others believe that the break-even rate would have to be considerably higher than the Treasury’s estimate.)

The flat tax proposal of Malcolm S. Forbes, Jr., was similar to Rep. Armey’s. Mr. Forbes suggested larger exemptions from the wage tax: $13,000 per taxpayer plus $5,000 per child. Forbes also considered retaining the earned-income tax credit. Based on the U.S. Treasury's analysis, the Forbes's proposal would have resulted in a revenue shortfall of between $180 and $210 billion a year (in 1996 dollars). Others believed the revenue losses would be much larger.



A flat tax is a type of income tax in which every taxpayer is subject to the same marginal tax rate.