Choosing the Flat Tax over the Fair Tax

After my recent post on "bashing the IRS," I got several emails and comments asking whether a national sales tax might be a better idea than the flat tax. I'm a big fan of proposals such as the Fair Tax. I've debated in favor of the national sales tax, done media interviews in favor of the national sales tax, written in favor of the national sales tax, and even defended the national sales tax in congressional testimony. As far as I'm concerned, we should junk the IRS for some type of single-rate, consumption-base (meaning no double taxation), loophole-free system. The flat tax is the most well-know approach for achieving these goals, but the national sales tax also would work. Indeed, the two plans are different sides of the same coin. A sales tax takes a piece of your income (but only one time and at one low rate) when it is spent, and a flat tax grabs a slice of your income (but only one time and at one low rate) when it is earned.

So why, then, do I devote most of my energies to a sales tax? The answer is that I don't trust politicians. I fear that they will pull a bait-and-switch, and implement something like a Fair Tax but never complete the deal by getting rid of the income tax. The European experience certainly serves as a warning. Nations across Europe began implementing their version of a national sales tax (the value-added tax) in the late 1960s. Voters often were told that other taxes would be eliminated or reduced. But all the evidence shows that VATs simply led to a much higher tax burden and a much bigger burden of government.

I don't want that to happen in America, as I explained 13 years ago for Reason and two years ago for the Media Research Center. But this video is probably the best summary of my argument.



By the way, some fans of the Fair Tax say the solution to this problem is an amendment to the Constitution. I fully agree, but then I point out that there are not even enough votes to approve a watered-down balanced budget amendment, so that seems an unlikely path to success. That being said, if we ever reach this point, and are able to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with something that unambiguously would stop the politicians from ever burdening America with an income tax, I will gladly offer my support and push a national sales tax

Is the FairTax Political Poison?

I have a question for my friends who support a national sales tax. First, some background. Beginning with the defeat of Woody Jenkins in his Louisiana Senate race back in the 1990s, various versions of the national sales tax have caused political headaches for GOP candidates. Even candidates from conservative states, such as Sen. DeMint in South Carolina, have been put on the defensive because they said good things about the FairTax. The latest example comes from the Pennsylvania special election for Rep. Murtha's seat. As this Wall Street Journal column points out, the winning Democratic candidate hammered the Republican because of his support for the FairTax. So even though I have said very nice things about a national sales tax, testified about the virtues of the national sales tax, and debated in favor of a national sales tax over the current system, I am increasingly convinced that the flat tax is the only plan that is sufficiently immune to demagoguery. Can anyone give me a persuasive argument about the political viability of the FairTax?

Democrats turned the table and ran against Mr. Burns on taxes. The GOP businessman had flirted in the past with supporting the FAIR tax, a version of a national sales tax that supporters want to replace the income tax. Mr. Critz's ads blasted Mr. Burns for supporting a 23% sales tax increase without mentioning the income tax elimination, and the GOP seems to have been caught flat-footed. Republicans can rightly complain that this is unfair and that Mr. Critz will vote to raise taxes when Mrs. Pelosi gives the order. But they need a real-time campaign answer to the tax-hike charge. Whatever the merits of the FAIR tax in theory, we've long thought it is a political loser because voters figure they'll get the sales tax without losing the income tax. At a minimum, FAIR tax supporters shouldn't have left Mr. Burns defenseless on the subject. By the way, this is also a political warning to Republicans inclined to fall for the Democratic trap of agreeing to a new value-added tax in return for lower income-tax rates.

A Flat Tax-Sales Tax Debate from the Archives

I only vaguely remember this debate that took place at Furman University, and I never saw this recording until it arrived in my inbox today. I invite fans of both the flat tax and FairTax to watch this debate and let me know your thoughts.

Many of my arguments, by the way, also apply to the debate on the value-added tax. Simply stated, I don't trust politicians when they claim a VAT won't be used to increase the overall burden of government.

Don't Give Up on the American People...at Least not Yet

Gloominess and despair are not uncommon traits among supporters of limited government - and with good reason. Government has grown rapidly in recent years and it is expected to get much bigger in the future. To make matters worse, it seems that the deck is stacked against reforms to restrain government. One problem is that 47 percent of Americans are exempt from paying income taxes, which presumably means they no longer have any incentive to resist big government. Mark Steyn recently wrote a very depressing column for National Review Online about this phenomenon, noting that, "By 2012, America could be holding the first federal election in which a majority of the population will be able to vote themselves more government lollipops paid for by the ever shrinking minority of the population still dumb enough to be net contributors to the federal treasury." Walter Williams, meanwhile, has a new column speculating on whether this cripple the battle for freedom:

According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., research organization, nearly half of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009...because their incomes are too low or they have higher income but credits, deductions and exemptions that relieve them of tax liability. This lack of income tax liability stands in stark contrast to the top 10 percent of earners, those households earning an average of $366,400 in 2006, who paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes. ...Let's not dwell on the fairness of such an arrangement for financing the activities of the federal government. Instead, let's ask what kind of incentives and results such an arrangement produces and ask ourselves whether these results are good for our country. ...Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation?

Steyn and Williams are right to worry, but the situation is not as grim as it seems for the simple reason that a good portion of the American people know the difference between right and wrong. Consider some of the recent polling data from Rasmussen, which found that "Sixty-six percent (66%) believe that America is overtaxed. Only 25% disagree. Lower income voters are more likely than others to believe the nation is overtaxed" and "75% of voters nationwide say the average American should pay no more than 20% of their income in taxes." These numbers contradict the hypothesis that 47 percent of Americans (those that don't pay income tax) are automatic supporters of class-warfare policy.

So why are the supposed free-riders not signing on to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda? There are probably several reasons, including the fact that many Americans believe in upward mobility, so even if their incomes currently are too low to pay income tax, they aspire to earn more in the future and don't want higher tax rates on the rich to serve as a barrier. I'm not a polling expert, but I also suspect there's a moral component to these numbers. There's no way to prove this assertion, but I am quite sure that the vast majority of hard-working Americans with modest incomes would never even contemplate breaking into a rich neighbor's house and stealing the family jewelry. So it is perfectly logical that they wouldn't support using the IRS as a middleman to do the same thing.

A few final tax observations:

The hostility to taxation also represents opposition to big government (at least in theory). Rasumssen also recently found that, "Just 23% of U.S. voters say they prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes over one with fewer services and lower taxes. ...Two-thirds (66%) of voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes."

There is a giant divide between the political elite and ordinary Americans. Rasmussen's polling revealed that, "Eighty-one percent (81%) of Mainstream American voters believe the nation is overtaxed, while 74% of those in the Political Class disagree."

Voters do not want a value-added tax or any other form of national sales tax. They are not against the idea as a theoretical concept, but they wisely recognize the politicians are greedy and untrustworthy. Rasumussen found that "just 26% of all voters think that it is even somewhat likely the government would cut income taxes after implementing a sales tax. Sixty-six percent (66%) believe it’s unlikely to happen."

Fiscal restraint is a necessary precondition for any pro-growth tax reform. If given a choice between a flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, or the current system, many Americans want reform, but it is very difficult to have a good tax system if the burden of government spending is rising. Likewise, it would be very easy to have a good tax system if we had a federal government that was limited to the duties outlined in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution.

Republicans should never acquiesce to higher taxes. All these good numbers and optimistic findings are dependent on voters facing a clear choice between higher taxes and bigger government vs lower taxes and limited government. If Republicans inside the beltway get seduced into a "budget summit" where taxes are "on the table," that creates a very unhealthy dynamic where voters instinctively try to protect themselves by supporting taxes on somebody else - and the rich are the easiest target.

Last but not least, I can't resist pointing out that I am part of a debate for U.S. News & World Report on the flat tax vs. the current system. For those of you who have an opinion on this matter, don't hesitate to cast a vote.

The Flat Tax: Good for America, Bad for Washington

America's biggest fiscal challenge is excessive government spending. The public sector is far too large today and it is projected to get much bigger in coming decades. But the corrupt and punitive internal revenue code is second on the list of fiscal problems. This new video, narrated by yours truly and produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, explains how a flat tax would work and why it would promote growth and fairness.