Is There Really a Fair Tax

Albert Einstein once said that "the hardest thing to understand in the world is income taxes". I definitely agree with him and I think everyone's lives would be a lot easier without income taxes. Recently I came upon something called the FairTax. It is a bill in Congress with a good amount of supporters and its goal is to establish a national consumption tax of 23% and eliminate all income taxes. I went to FairTax.org and read about the bill in detail. I must say that it is an intriguing and revolutionary bill, but is it really a fair tax?

The main point of the FairTax is that rich people spend more money so they will be taxed more. Since it is a tax on consumption instead of of income it encourages saving and investment. There is also a set level of expenditures that are not taxed. For a couple in the continental United States the limit is around $20,000. I do find this attractive because it should encourage people to spend less so that they can keep more. However, I can see how this can backfire and people will spend more than before because their paychecks will look much bigger and they will feel rich. If everyone's social security and federal taxes were suddenly gone, many people will find their paychecks to be 20 to 30% bigger. That's a huge increase on paper and psychologically it will induce more spending.

I am also skeptic about this tax because I still think that the rich will benefit more from the plan. There is a basic cost of living for survival no matter where you live. Suppose that amount is $30,000 a year for a couple somewhere in the United States. So they're not taxed on the first $20,000 they spend and on the next $10000 they need to pay $3000 under the FairTax (The tax is $3000 on $10000 because $3000 is 23% of 13000). Suppose one couple in this area makes $35,000 a year and another couple makes $70,000 a year and they both spend the minimum they need to survive. The couple that makes $35,000 saves $2,000 because they spent $30,000 and paid $3,000 in taxes. The couple that makes $70,000 saves 37,000 instead, and pays the same $3,000 in taxes. The effective tax rate on the poorer couple is 8.6% while the effective tax rate on the richer couple is 4.3%. Is this fair? I think it's debatable, but under the regular tax system the poorer couple probably could have qualified for a lot more tax cuts. Though, since these couples can't escape the 7.65% payroll taxes on Social Security and Medicare, even the 8.6% tax rate isn't too bad. No matter how we cut it, those who have more money will benefit more because they can live on a smaller portion of their income. The FairTax counts on the fact that richer people spend more money, but I don't think that's always true. If you look at Warren Buffet, from all available reports it really seems that he doesn't spend that much on himself every year, but his investment income is enormous. If the FairTax were implemented, a gargantuan chunk of tax revenue that could have been collected from frugal billionaires like Warren would be gone. It's great for Warren, but is it really feasible for the United States government?

Another thing I don't consider fair about this tax system is the minimum poverty rate. They really can't say that $20,000 is the poverty rate throughout the whole country. In expensive counties like San Mateo and San Francisco a couple usually needs more than $20,000 a year just for the necessities. The average rent for a 1 bedroom is around $1000 to $1500 in these counties. If they really wanted to be fair they would adjust the poverty rate for each region. It shouldn't be so hard because they already have a cost of living system in place for the military where soldiers get different cost of living allowances in different parts of the country and world. The same system could be used to adjust the minimum poverty rate in each region.

This tax is also a huge boon to the bottom lines of corporations because the high corporate taxes are eliminated. The FairTax proponents argue that this is a stimulant to the economy because corporations would be able to hire more people and produce more with the income they have. Also, they argue that prices will come down because corporations will no longer have to pay their employees' social security and medicare taxes so corporations can create cheaper products. Most of this sounds good, but I imagine it would be harder for small businesses to start because there will probably be legal barriers. Also, big corporations probably will not lower their prices just because their costs are lower. The whole point of capitalism is to make as much money as possible. If a consumer is willing to pay $100 for something, a corporation would not mark it down to $50 just because their manufacturing process suddenly became more efficient and they can produce twice as much. A smart corporation would continue to charge $100.

Anyway, this is an issue to watch for in the 2008 elections. FairTax.org has a list of presidential candidates who have stated in public whether or not they support the proposal. Personally, I am wary of this proposal and I agree with what Giuliani and McCain said. This is a new system that will take a lot of effort to implement and get used to. It also needs to be fleshed out further and looked at more carefully by more people. I doubt that it will be passed in the near future because there is just too much logistics involved. I am glad that people want to change America's crazily convoluted tax system, but I am afraid that there is really no system that can be simple and equitable to everyone. I think the FairTax is definitely an interesting idea, but it probably won't get enough support to be passed into law in the state it is in now. Additionally, all 50 state governments will have to agree to it and implement it, and that may be more difficult than just getting it passed in the Congress.