AssetBuilder Inc, - Registered Invesment Advisor - Simple Investing Smart Future
in

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

Why Do You Favor the Fair Tax?

C.C. in Houston writes to say there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax plan for a single flat sales tax. He quotes a letter from another concerned citizen to the editor of the Houston Chronicle.

"The so-called Fair Tax scheme is a blatant attempt by the wealthy to reduce their tax payments. I call it the 'unfair tax,' as it will tax consumption rather than income. Those in the lower- to middle-income brackets usually spend most all of their income on necessities and can't save. They would be taxed on practically 100 percent of their income. Retirees, whose income may require them to pay no taxes, would end up paying taxes on all of the money they spend, which would greatly reduce their purchasing power.

fairtax.jpg

"On the other hand, those who make more than they spend, and indeed those whose incomes greatly exceed their expenditures, would pay taxes on significantly less of their incomes, proportionally. What's fair about that? In fact it is a total reversal of the graduated tax system that we now have where we pay taxes based on our ability to pay. Our current system is certainly flawed and needs major overhauling, but it is still the fairest method of taxation.

"Let's fix the system we have rather than shifting the tax burden to lower-income Americans."

I've heard this argument before. It doesn't hold water. I believe that junking the current tax system -- in its entirety -- would create a modestly graduated tax system with a very broad base, consumption. By replacing both the income tax and the employment tax (among others) with a single sales tax, we would accomplish these good things:

  • Eliminate the fastest-growing and most regressive tax in our lifetime -- the employment tax.
  • Massively broaden the tax base from only some income to all consumption.
  • Eliminate the corporate income tax and the entrenched corrupting lobbies that it has engendered.
  • Make visible, for the first time, the size of our collective tax burden.
  • Save the incredible amount of time and money wasted on tax planning and scheming.
  • Create a path for dealing with the unfunded liabilities of Social Security by increasing the tax base that supports it.
  • End the biannual festival of finger-pointing and envy that has become the hallmark of every election cycle.
  • Remove the embedded expense wedge that reduces the competitive position of American-made goods.

The Fair Tax proposal calls for giving all households a "pre-bate" of what they would pay in sales taxes for the necessities of life. The pre-bate would be paid to households monthly, eliminating the burden of taxes on our poorest families. Because of the pre-bate, the new tax would amount to a graduated tax.

The argument that poor people save little and rich people save much is a red herring because it ignores two realities. First, the only benefit from having money is what we can consume with it. If you earn money that is not spent, you are deriving no immediate benefit from the money and shouldn't pay taxes on it. As long as the money not spent is used in our economy, it is providing benefits to everyone in the form of new investment, new jobs and working capital.

Second, many people who are rich or well-off spend more than their income on consumption because they are spending a portion of their capital. Some of that capital would not be taxed at all in the current system. The portion that was capital gain would be taxed at only 15 percent. With the Fair Tax, the very rich would pay taxes on all consumption. This includes mega yachts, wine cellars, and much other consumption that is taxed lightly or not at all. Instead, they would pay at the higher sales tax rate.

Right now our entire tax system is stacked against the young. The burden is getting worse, not better. It is possible that some older people would pay more in taxes than they do under the current system. That would only happen, however, if they had significant assets that they spent on consumption.

In that case, the sales tax would be highly progressive. It would tax those with assets that were used for consumption. It would not tax those who had no assets to use for consumption.

The only people who should fear the Fair Tax are the politicians, of both parties, who would lose their tools for extortion.

Most public polls show that more than 50 percent of the voting public -- left, right and middle -- favor a radical reform of our tax system.

So let's take a poll. Go to our forums and discuss it with the community


ON THE WEB

The Fair Tax Web site

Comments

 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott:

The idea has merit, but if I understood the Fair Tax website correctly, it appears that the pre-bate would be up to the poverty level.

If all tax payers start paying the tax on the first dollar after the poverty level wouldn't this tax be unfair to the lower income people. I would think most people in the lower income levels are spending all of their income on the necessities of life, even those with income above the poverty level.

How would you determine at what income level this tax becomes fair?

Jerry McAllsiter

From Scott Burns:

It's important to remember that the national sales tax will replace the entire tax system, including the highly regressive employment tax, now 15.3 percent on the first $94,200 of income in 2006. While half of that amount doesn't appear in a workers paycheck, economists generally regard the employment tax as a tax on labor that is paid by the worker.

Under the current system a single worker earning $9,570 a year pays an employment tax of $732 directly and another $732 indirectly. Under a national sales tax system the same worker would receive a prebate of $2,201 a year, completely offsetting any sales taxes paid.

When the single workers income rises and becomes subject to the federal income tax, the first rate is 10 percent. So they face an effective marginal tax rate of 25.3 percent, which is higher than the expected national sales tax rate.

In addition, lower income workers may spend all their income but they stretch their dollars by buying used cars, etc. Since the national sales tax does not tax the sale of used items, their effective tax rate could be still lower.
October 19, 2006 11:23 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

You left out one of the most important and logical arguments for a sales tax. It is an absolutely inescapable economic fact that all taxes are paid by the consumer. Your doctor/dentist doesn't pay his income tax; you do. When you buy a car, all the taxes that went into the manufacture of same must be included in the cost. This is obviously true of everything that you buy and consume. If sales taxes were the only tax, the cost of everything you buy would be considerably reduced. What would a loaf of bread cost if you took out all the taxes imposed on it by the time it reached the grocer's shelf? Considerably less than it does now. You might even pay less for it even with the sales tax included.

Thanks for listening. Keep up the good work.
October 19, 2006 7:10 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Jerry, A family of 4 earning about $40,000/year (2x the poverty level) that spends ALL of their income is only taxed at 11.5% IF all of that $40,000 is spent on NEW goods and services. I have not bought a new car in years because I did not want to eat the depreciation. With the FairTax, the benefits of a used car would be much greater. Another aspect you have not mentioned is that there will be many more jobs available. Plus, everyone will get to take home 100% of their paycheck AND there will be no more embedded taxes in the cost of what new goods we decide to buy, so those goods, including the FairTax will be nearly the same cost as they are today. Please read the book and visit fairtax.org - there is lots of info there to help you understand the many benefits to all Americans of the FairTax.

Timbertoe
October 19, 2006 8:20 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I have to take exception with Timbertoe on one small point. A family of 4 earning $40000/year would actually have $46072/year to spend when you include the prebate.

Another aspect of the Fair Tax that has not been discussed is that the tax code would no longer be used to set social policy. The current tax code is used extensively to encourage behaviors our elected officials think should be encouraged and to discourage other types of behavior. No matter how well intentioned, this encouragement always has unintended consequences and almost always in a negative manner. Let our elected officials be more open in the manner that they use to shape society.

I would like to see some estimates of the effects the Fair Tax would have on the cost of goods and services. Removing the embedded taxes would surely have the effect of reducing prices.
October 20, 2006 8:44 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

The Fair Tax is the best Tax policy bill that I have ever seen. 1) It promotes saveing and investing. Which Americans are horrible at. 2) No longer will business have to worry more about the tax consequence of decisions when contemplating moves. For instance Chrysler may still be an American car manufacturer if the Fair Tax had been in effect at that time. 3) There will no longer be any need to shelter cash in overseas accounts due to no tax on income. 4) Lifts all tax burden off of the lower income people through the prebate. 5) No longer will Billions of dollars be spent on just FIGGUREING the dang TAX owed! 6) The best part is: What do you consider the worst thing in Washington today? Lobbists. And what will happen to them after the Fair Tax is enacted? UNEMPLOYMENT!

As far as how do you figgure at what income level does the tax become fair? If you earned and spent 52,800 a year your tax rate would mean that 11.5 % of your income would be going to the Gov. Because of the prebate. But what really makes the tax fair is that the government does not get its share of your paycheck before you do. Then you have to choose to spend before the government does get a %. ie: Under the current system: Your cars engine blows up. Your out of cash, and got to save the $ to get it repaired. Well every week while your saving the gov takes its share while your trying to save. Fair Tax: Government gets nothing, your able to save 100% of your paycheck, then get your car fixed. If you buy a used engine from a salvage, still NO TAX!
October 20, 2006 6:46 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

- I wish we could call it the "National Retail Sales Tax" (an objective, descriptive name) instead of the "Fair Tax" (spin if I ever heard it)

- It is a GRETA idea. In addition to the other benefits already mentioned (fairness, reduction in govt social engineering, transparency) think a huge benefit is the productivity advantage it will give the US. Our comapnies (and workers) will not have the cost of taxes built in to their pay--our goods and services become much more competitive on the global market. Staying competitive is the ONLT way the US will maintain our standard of living in a global economy becoming more competitie every day.

Thanks to Scott for highlghting this important idea!!
October 21, 2006 6:47 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Anyone who opposes the FairTax saying that it hurts the poor doesn't understand, or hasn't taken the time to understand, the plan.

There is a provision in the bill that completely untaxes the working poor in our country (who DO have to pay the 7.5% Social Security and Medicare taxes under our current system). This is done in the form of a rebate on all taxes spent on the basic necessities of life up to the poverty level of spending. This rebate goes to the head of household and is based on family size NOT income. So, ALL Americans receive the rebate regardless of income. It is only AFTER we start spending above the poverty level that we start paying taxes. So, if the working poor only live on income that is at the poverty level they will be completely untaxed. All other Americans will choose how much they pay in taxes based on their spending decisions.

The FairTax only taxes NEW goods and services. So, people who choose to purchase only used items, whether that is a home, car, appliances, or whatever, could have a zero effective tax rate.

Americans will take home 100% of their paychecks... and for most Americans this means a 22% increase in income.

The taxes that retirees pay on their pensions, capital gains, 401(k) withdrawals, and Social Security will be eliminated. Additionally retirees currently pay taxes on all products and services which are embedded (hidden) in the pricing structure. These hidden taxes and tax related costs (corporate taxes, employer matching contributions, company compliance costs) will be eliminated . These hidden costs average 22% of every thing we purchase. Research shows that when these taxes and compliance costs are removed then the price of products will come down.

Removing the corporate taxes and compliance costs in the pricing structure will help U.S. manufacturers become competitive in the global market and will bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

People who don't understand how the FairTax will benefit EVERY demographic of our society as well as the economy of our nation need to go to www.FairTax.org and study the plan.

Millions of dollars have been spent in research to make sure that this plan will work best for our country. Alan Greenspan endorses this plan along with 75 of our nation's top economists. The list of endorsements can be found at www.GaFairTax.org.

The FairTax IS fair because it will be a voluntary tax based on spending decisions.
October 23, 2006 7:44 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I grew up in the days of Walter Cronkite telling us "and that's the way it is". We had ABC, NBC and CBS if we were lucky.

The National Sales Tax ("Fair Tax") is clearly a concept that should be able to be understood by the talking heads at ABC, NBC and CBS. Unfortunately we don't have a Walter Cronkite among them. The Fair Tax does not need to be interpreted. The talking heads simply need to read the bill and summarize it to fit their timeslot. They don't need to report what Joe Republican and Fred Democrat think about the impact. Just do the reporting. The politicians will figure out how to get their political message out to their political base.

Until the Fair Tax is implemented the exact effect on any individual situation can only be estimated. Human nature will play a part in all changes going forward.

For me there are two key points. First, the politicians will no longer be able to hide our tax burden. Second, the politicians will no longer be able to hide benefits in the 60,000 pages of tax code. The politicians will still be the same manipulative creatures as they are today - but they will need to find other ways of "truth" creation.

To those of you that are opposed to the "Fair Tax", all I ask is that you ask detailed questions of your favorite politicians. If they give you answers that are opposed to the definition of the "Fair Tax", then they obviously don't want to talk about the benefits of the Fair Tax. So instead, get them to explain to you the benefits of the current 60,000 pages of tax code. Those are the two alternatives on the table.

There is no fixing the 60,000 pages of tax code. But a lot of politicians are sitting in Congress simply because they got something put into those 60,000 pages that helped in their re-election campaign.

Personally I want to control my own tax burden. (I'm currently broke and unemployed, but I'll get a job soon.) Instead the IRS controls my life and will do so for the next five or more years because of past financial problems. I was semi-retired until the stockmarket crash. Without the income tax I would be retired. Instead I'll probably have to work until I'm 80 or until I drop dead.

I totally and completely support the "Fair Tax". It is a complete disgrace that Republicans and Democrats can not get together and do what's right for the country. It is also a complete disgrace that ABC, NBC and CBS can not simply read the bill and conclude "that's the way it is".
October 24, 2006 9:24 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

One question, please, about the transition to the sales tax regime. How are present savings treated? Suppose I have saved $100,000 in after-tax funds, that is, funds not in an IRA or Qualified Retirement Plan. I have paid tax on these monies already. Would I be taxed again if I spent them under the Fair Tax program? I would not like that!

From Scott Burns:

So far, this is the most common worry about the Fair Tax plan---Roth IRA savers worry they will pay taxes twice if a national sales tax replaces our current system. First they will pay income taxes on money put in Roth IRA plans. Then they will pay sales tax on money withdrawn from their plans.

The short answer is, yes, they will suffer a tax ding relative to those whose savings are entirely in traditional IRA plans. The tax bite, however, will be smaller than most anticipate due to investment growth inside the Roth IRA.

Why?

Only the original contribution will be after-tax income that will be taxed again when it is spent. Every dollar of growth will be income that has never been taxed, just like growth inside traditional IRA plans. Here's an example:

Suppose you contribute $2,000 a year to a traditional IRA for 20 years and earn at an 8 percent annualized rate. At the end of the period you will have accumulated $91,524 that has never been taxed.

Now suppose you are in the 15 percent tax bracket (the most common bracket and a good reason to put money in a Roth) and do the same thing--- allocate $2,000 a year of pre-tax income to savings. You'll pay $300 a year in taxes and put $1,700 a year into your Roth IRA. The account will grow to $77,795 and you'll have $43,795 of growth that has never been taxed.

Basically, you will have lost 15 percent of your possible purchasing power due to the paying the taxes early, or $13,729. That's a real loss. But $43,795 of your accumulation will have enjoyed the same benefits as gains inside a traditional IRA.

There is no way to make this painless compared to a traditional IRA but the tax hit isn't as total as it first appears.  
October 24, 2006 1:34 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

The Fair Tax would take a great deal of pressure off of small business in the following areas:



Compliance Costs. I spend several hours each week doing the paperwork necessary to comply with federal regulations surrounding payroll taxes, social security, Medicare and Federal Unemployment Taxes. This is time spent away from maintaining, growing my business or even spending with my family.

The expense of matching Social Security and Medicare Taxes as well as Federal Unemployment taxes. I pay approximately $10,000.00 per month in matching payroll taxes for my employees. That is $120,000.00 per year that could be used to help grow my business (that is the annual salary for another employee) or at the very least make me more competitive with foreign/offshore companies that do not pay the same taxes that I do.

I am just one small business but we know that small business employees America.



Just imagine what would happen if a million small businesses could hire a million new employees. Small business is not structured to deal with the complicated compliance required of them by the Federal Government nor, in my opinion should they have to be.



Fair Tax is not what we should do it is what we must do for America.
October 24, 2006 3:22 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

A benefit that is seldom mentioned is that purchases made with illegal income such as drugs would be taxed. Additionally, income by illegal immigrants would be taxed. There is a tremendous amount of money spent by drug dealers that has never been taxed. This would greatly increase the tax base without affecting anyone but those that currently are not paying taxes.
October 24, 2006 4:46 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I am retailer that will have to collect a lot of this tax revenue. However, I am also a student of the economy that is convinced that the economic benefits of (1) eliminating most compliance costs, (2) eliminating the tax penalties on US made goods, and (3) increasing the flow of capital into the US markets far out-weigh any of the "dooms day" scenarios regarding the elimination of income taxes.

To mbe1939, keep in mind that (by many economists' estimates) 22% of what you pay for products & services today is "embedded" income taxes. When you eliminate these taxes from the cost of things you buy and then add back the sales tax, you should pay pretty close to the same for the product (or service) and the same amount of tax. The greatest feature of this proposal is that now you will actually see (and feel) the cost of that tax... and get to decide for your self whether or not to pay it!!

I would also like to voice my concern that calling this a "fair" tax is spin. I have the same opinion about calculating the 23% rate based on the tax inclusive price. This is misleading and provides something for opponents of the proposal to pick on. Let's call it what it is.... It is a 30% national sales tax plain and simple!!!

Here is the math...

If you pay $100 for a product or service after passing of the national sales tax... $77 would go to the seller and $23 would go to the federal government (thus the 23%.) Since we are all used to paying sales taxes to our state government, they would compute this same $23 as a 30% sales tax on the $77 selling price of the product or service. I think to avoid confusion, this is how the national sales tax should be computed. Of course, I am not a politician so maybe I just don't get it!!!

Count my vote IN FAVOR of the national sales tax!!!
October 24, 2006 7:29 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

mbe1939, I, and thousands of other folks, are in the same boat. Maybe we converted from a conventional IRA to a Roth and paid all the taxes. If the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST--I too hate the spin-laden "Fair Tax" moniker) without some type of credit, then there's no getting around the fact that you wil e worse off than if you hadn't converted to a Roth. Three observations: 1) Everybody willhave some "special situation" that they would want addressed. "I bought a house for the tax deduction--now I won't be getting one!" "I leased this car rather than buying one for business use because of the tax advantages-the government should give me a break!!" If the NRST is re-written to give everyone a break, I'm afraid the rush for gimmes will sink it. 2) The most important question should not be "Should I support a plan that doesn't give me full credit for taxes i paid already? but instead "Should I support a plan that is better for me and for my country? As you become familiar with the many attractive aspects of the NRST, you'll see how much better off you and all of us will be. So, do you want the benefits of that, or not? Would you be better off with our present crazy tax code and your Roth tax break, or would you be better off with a wholly restructured tax code that rewards work, rewards saving, and makes our goods more competitve on the world market? 3) Are you really sure the government will keep its promises about the tax exempt status of some of these accounts? The budget/Social Security/Medicare deficit is huge and getting bigger. Look at the available funding sources and tell me that "taxing the accounts of the rich instead of the paychecks of the working por and middle class" won't soon become a campaign theme. Do you trust the present goverment promise enough to forego the huge benefits of the Fair Tax?
October 24, 2006 9:13 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

The "Fair Tax Act" is a splendid proposal.....I am 100% in favor of it. Shutting down the IRS alone would save this country millions of dollars per year...However, I strongly believe that our beloved politicians will NEVER PASS this bill...Shame on them ALL who votes it down...!!

SAM South Carolina
October 24, 2006 9:47 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I support the "Fair Tax Act"

I see no reason to condem the name of it or want to change it I or YOU (who want to change the name)did not take the time to do all the work that went into it so what wright do you have to think it should be changed.

The Politicians will do what the will of the people want. If we the people stand up and tell them what we want and do not just go out and tell our neighbors in the jest of conversation.

If you want something bad enough you will find a way.

So go out and want want want till you find the way way way.

JUST DO IT
October 25, 2006 5:46 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

You are all very articulate. After reading all the posts I am very encouraged. In my small circle of influence I have not come across anyone who sees the benefits of the National Retail Sales Tax (with the prebate) as I do.

ftlKev: I agree that we need to stop calling it a 23% tax. We need to call it a 30% sales tax as it is. HOWEVER, we must also clearly and thoroughly communicate to everyone that we currently pay 30-35% tax (using the same means of calculating) in the products and services we buy every day.

AMERICANS DON'T SEE COST OF GOV'T: SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION FOR UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS I'm in South Carolina. In the 2004 Senate race, Jim DeMint's Democratic opponent ran an ad. She walked through a grocery store where every product had a red 23% tax tag on it and said that Jim DeMint wants to add a 23% tax to all of these products. I wrote the DeMint campaign and told them that they should run an ad with Jim walking through a store with blue 23-29% tags on everything and say, "Each of these products already have a hidden tax of at least 23%. Services such as medical and dental have as much as 29% hidden tax. My opponent does not want you to know about these hidden taxes that YOU ARE PAYING. I want to reduce [or expose] this tax and put it right on the bottom of every purchase receipt so that every American can regularly see how much their government is costing them. Not only that, but our plan would let every American take home their entire paycheck and completely untax the poor."

Well, they didn't want to be reactionary. Therefore, this should be give to pro FairTax candidates so that they can have it in their arsenal.

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: ANSWER, FAIRTAX If the Democrats truly believe the mantra they've been pounding, "Culture of Corruption", "Climate of Corruption", then they should jump on board the best solution to purify our government of the corruption of greed -- the FairTax. Take away Congress's ability to play favorites with special interest groups in the tax code and you free up a lot of their time to focus on issues that matter and eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, decisions based on greed. UNABLE TO ENFORCE LAWS ON MASSES: ANSWER, FAIRTAX The illegal alien issue makes the FairTax shine. If the Federal Government can not enforce the straight forward law on the 11-12 million law breakers that have come into our country illegally, how in the world can they even attempt to enforce the convoluted, perplexing tax code on over 200 million tax filing entities. Some of the lamest arguments I've heard against the FairTax is that people would start fake businesses to evade the tax. OK!!! As if those same people don't evade the tax code now. Furthermore, it will be a lot easier to find those people out of 20 million tax filing entities than trying to find them out of 200 million.

Respectfully,

David C
October 25, 2006 3:39 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

For mbe1939 and others concerned about being taxed again when you spend your money. Every purchase you make or will make has at least 23% taxes already embeded in it right now. So if the system remains the same you will be paying more taxes on your spending anyway. At least with the Fair Tax there is no taxes imposed when you take out your money. No dividend tax, no capital gains tax, no nothing. So which is better? The Fair Tax.
October 25, 2006 6:14 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I have to vote with the "National Sales Tax" group vs the "Fair Tax" label. Our society is inundated with words being mis-used for political purposes. (The "Fair Tax" label is the first clue to which side of the partisan divide this idea comes from, which will raise hackles on the other side....which is a tremendous shame.)

The pre-bate expands access to banking services through the use of direct deposit. This may help bring more people into the economic mainstream.

The pre-bate can encourage saving, in that money not spent stays in the account.

The 23%/30% question has me baffled. A $77 item with a 23% sales tax costs $94.71 out-of-pocket, not the $100 that a 30% tax would mean.

Tremendously great idea!
October 25, 2006 9:04 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

the fairetax only taxes new items used iterms are tax free
October 27, 2006 6:21 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

answer to your "reduces taxes on the rich" complaint. i have a family of 5 with a household income of $50,000. i get the same size prebate as my neighbor who has a family of 5 and $200,000 total income. when i go to the store i pay 30% sales tax on my $2/lbs ground beef. he pays 30% sales tax on his $10/lbs filet mignon. i pay 0% sales tax on my used honda. he pays 30% on his new mercedes. my "rich" neighbor will pay more than me because he consumes more things and more expensive things than i do.

if this bill ever passes it will benefit us as well as generations to come. it is a bit short sighted to vote no simply because "my roth ira is going to be taxed a second time". my guess is that with 60,000 pages of tax code your money is being taxed several times over as it is.
October 29, 2006 12:15 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Our current tax system needs a complete overhaul but your tax system favors the rich and every governmental action that favors high income people eventually eliminates the middle income people and we degenerate into depression.

Jerry, Texas

From Scott Burns:

I think if you study this subject further you will come to the opposite conclusion, that the flat tax proposal will produce more taxes from the rich and will not favor people with high incomes over people with low incomes. To understand this you need to think about the fact that we have two major tax systems, not one. We have an income tax system which is graduated and we have an employment tax system that is not. Add the taxes people pay and the current system puts the major burden on middle income taxpayers.

Here is a personal example--- and one of the reasons I favor the flat tax. My wife and I have been blessed with strong earning power and long careers. As a consequence, our federal income tax bracket is 35 percent and we also pay the Medicare tax, 2.8 percent. That's a total of 37.8 percent.   Our children, now in their early 40's, earn far less. Their federal income tax bracket is 25 percent but their full employment tax is another 15.4 percent. Although their income is less than 1/3 of ours, they pay taxes at a 40.4 percent rate.   I'm sure you can find many similar examples.


If we switched to a flat consumption tax we would not see such inequities.
October 30, 2006 5:14 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Dear Sir:

I read you column today and it brought up a question I have been bothered with for some time. I've done as you suggested and have a sizable protion of my retirement in a Roth IRA, and I also agree that the present tax system needs radical change.

Which leads to the question of, how I will I be able to avoid paying additional taxes on my Roth IRA if there is a national sales tax?

John

  

From Scott Burns:

Whatever you spend would be subject to the sales tax, just as your after-tax income is now subject to smaller state taxes. While you would not fare as well as people with traditional IRA accounts, you could take some solace in the fact that your Roth-IRA accounts contain (1) after-tax contributions and (2) never taxed investment returns on those contributions. The longer you've had the Roth-IRA before using the money, the greater the proportion of the money that will never have been taxed.

That said, there is no escaping the reality that Roth IRA account holders won't benefit as traditional IRA account holders.
November 20, 2006 11:34 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Do you know where I can obtain a copy of the proposals that are being profferred for the replacement of the current tax system?

  

From Scott Burns:

I'd start at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-25 where you can track the bill, H.R. 25, and get a copy of it.

If you want to read more, I suggest a visit to the Fair Tax organization website, www.fairtax.org, or a quick reading of "The FairTax Book" by Neal Boortz--- it tells the whole story in 180 pages. Very readable. The paperback version is now available on Amazon for only $10.17.

If you'd like to read some of the economic research related to the tax, I suggest a visit to the website of economist Larry Kotlikoff (http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/ ) where he has posted two papers related to the Fair Tax: "Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current system of Federal Taxation" and "Taxing Sales under the FairTax---What Rate Works?"

Larry and I gave our reasons for a national sales tax in "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004), a book that was endorsed by four Nobel laureates. Significantly, while most liberals rail against the idea of a sales tax, Kotlikoff believes it may be the best way to broaden the tax base, tax wealth, and reduce the horrible generational inequities that have been created by both our political parties.

And, for the record, more than 18,000 readers responded to my Fair Tax poll and the vast majority--- over 99 percent--- favored the Fair Tax.

No, I don't think it was a representative poll--- but it is an indication that this is an idea with a following. The cause--- junking the entire tax code, replacing it with a single, simple sales tax--- is not impossible. What I am hoping for is a broad voter movement that will work to defeat any politician, regardless of party, who refuses to support this reform. That's what it will take.
November 27, 2006 10:16 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott, I may have missed a recent column but how is the response going on your Fair Tax question? Thanks and regards, Stan

  

From Scott Burns:

You haven't missed a column. I did, however, post a comment mentioning that the count was now over 18,000. We got the first 6,000 in a few days after the column appeared, then a surge to about 11,000 when it was released in other papers, and finally a third surge to 18,000 when the column was mentioned on the Fair Tax website.

Roughly 99 percent of the votes are in favor of the Fair Tax. It was slightly (slightly!) lower in the first surge which also contained some interesting negative responses. Those responses fall into a handful of categories:
  • The Fair Tax would be regressive because the rich save more of their income than the poor and middle class.
  • If we can't trust the politicians with the current tax code, what makes you think we can trust them with a new tax code?
  • Yeah, and what will happen to me and my Roth IRA accumulation?
The first idea is simply wrong. The Fair tax would be slightly progressive due to the tax rebate. Most people don't add their income tax payments, their employment tax payments, and the portion of the employment tax paid by their employer to find their true tax burden. If they did, they would find that we have a remarkably flat tax system for all but the very poor and the very rich.    It's hard to respond to the second idea. I think we have to keep trying and, if necessary, we'll have to develop a groundswell that will vote current politicians out of office. This would be a bipartisan movement since both parties are equally nonfunctional in this realm.    The third idea needs to be considered but the reality is that you have to break eggs to make an omelet: original contributions to Roth IRA accounts will be disadvantaged because they will be taxed twice, before they went into the accounts and with the national sales tax when they come out. All accumulated earnings in such accounts, however, will have the same tax burden as money in traditional IRA accounts. As a practical matter, the amount of money in Roth IRAs is tiny compared to other asset holdings.
November 30, 2006 8:07 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I could get used to the Fair Tax, or whatever you want to call it, but I have one problem and you have commented on it before on this thread. If I understand you comment correctly, you are not stating the full effect of a change to the new tax. A whole layer of taxation of Roth funds is too far out of line with the promise made by the government.

Here is my thinking. All the funds in a traditional IRA, and a 410k for that matter, are free of tax and the deal was that withdrawals would be taxed at ordinary rates. So replacing current tax code with the Flat Tax is, in theory, a non-event. The money was always going to be taxed.

In a Roth, contributions and conversions were made with after-tax dollars. The dividends and gains are free of tax and the deal was that withdrawals would never be taxed. This amounts to a layer of taxation on the contributions and conversions but no further tax. Therefore, dividends and gains in a Roth remain tax free forever. Replacing current tax code with the Flat Tax creates a second taxation layer on the contributed or converted funds, which you acknowledge. It also adds a single layer of taxation on all the dividends and gains that were never going to be taxed under the old code. You do not seem to mention this in your comments. It seems to equate that if the flat tax rate is 30%, it will effectively wipe out a full 30% of a Roth account. This is on top of taxes already paid on contributions and conversions under the old code at ordinary rates. I don't want to break that many eggs.

I don't know how to run the numbers accurately but I get the feeling of a serious hose job for Roth holders under the Fair Tax. I find most of my investments in a Roth and I strongly object to making this change without some compensating action. I cannot accept your earlier comment that people in this situation will just get a tax ding or that the money in Roths is tiny compared to other asset holdings. Or, that they should move on with it for the sake of the majority and country as another person posted.

I enjoy your articles. Keep up the good work and straighten me out if I am misunderstanding the issues.

John Higbie

  

From Scott Burns:

Your concern is the one mentioned most often by readers. There is no way to avoid the problem you mention: An all-ROTH saver would be adversely affected by a shift to a national sales tax relative to people with savings in other forms.

I believe the amount of money in Roth accounts is quite small relative to traditional accounts. It would certainly be small relative to the amount of income. Perhaps Roth account holders could be compensated for their tax disadvantage.

Beyond that, all I can say is that there is no change in our tax law that does not harm some while aiding others. I don't mean to sound cavalier, I'm just trying to put some proportion on the issue relative to the vast amounts of money flowing through our economy.
December 20, 2006 10:40 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Dear Mr. Burns,

What are the results of your reader survey about the FairTax plan?

Thanks very much,

James

  

From Scott Burns:

We received over 18,000 responses, the vast majority of them--- over 99 percent--- positive. Unfortunately, that doesn't cut it as a broad survey since the www.fairtax.org website mentioned the column and urged people to vote, a move that increased the voting by as much as 8,000 votes. Even so, I think it is safe to say that the broad public would favor a vastly simpler tax system.

The biggest qualms readers mentioned were: (1) the misconception that it wasn't graduated and (2) concern about how it would work for participants in Roth IRA plans since they paid taxes in advance, unlike traditional IRA participants.
December 25, 2006 8:03 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Why not "deconvert" Roth accounts? Many folks converted traditional IRAs and sent checks to the government. Why not have the government refund the paid taxes when the Roths are "deconverted" to normal savings accounts under the Fair Tax? Yes, the government would need to fund the payments. But it is fair for Roth account holders to get back their paid taxes.

  

From Scott Burns:

As a practical matter, I doubt that the funding requirements would be great because Roth accounts are a small portion of the qualified plan universe.
January 29, 2007 9:10 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Some sort of tax refund for Roth accounts would make a flat tax more palatable especially if it included interest as further compensation for the government's reneging on their Roth promise. But I am not sure that Roth savers are the only ones that deserve some compensation for a change to the flat tax.

It seems to me that anyone who has accumulated funds in any after-tax account would be in the same boat. They, like Roth accounts, have already paid tax on the balance of the account with the exception that these accounts continue to pay tax on gains, dividends, and interest thereby making every dollar an after-tax dollar. Under the current system, they could withdraw and spend all this money without further Federal Tax.

However, when the flat tax is imposed, all purchases made by funds from these accounts will be subject to the National Sales Tax. This means that every dollar up to the time the flat tax is implemented has had tax paid under the current system and each of those dollars will be taxed again when they are spent after implementation.

Only accounts that contain before-tax dollars such as 401k and Traditional IRAs are exempt from this double taxation issue. Retirees, like me, who are living off their after-tax savings and Roth conversion accounts will be devastated buy this change without some sort of equitable compensation.

The problem is bigger than just the Roth. Please correct me if I have made some invalid comments here.

Thanks,

John From Scott Burns:

Nothing invalid in your comments. You've hit one of the most common worries about the flat tax that people have--- that it will penalize those with Roth plans.
April 11, 2007 1:41 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

But Scott...

It is not just the Roth. It is all after-tax accounts. Checking, savings, brokerage, CDs, mutual funds, money markets, money in the piggy bank on the dresser, everything that has already had taxes paid on it will pay again when spent.

And not only will they pay Income tax, but also SS and Medicare tax, both employee and employer portions. Not even the 401k and Traditional IRA is exempt from double paying these taxes.

What do you think?

John
April 14, 2007 3:56 PM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, will be published this spring by Simon & Schuster. "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife divide their time between Dallas and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved.