• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
Read the actual plan.....then comment like the supposedly intelligent
people you are.

Phase One

Our current economic crisis calls for bold action to truly stimulate
the economy and Renew America back to its greatness. The 9-9-9 Plan
gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and
losers, using the tax code to dole out favors, and dividing the
country with class warfare. It is fair, simple, transparent and
efficient. It taxes everything once and nothing twice. It taxes the
broadest possible base at the lowest possible rates. It is neutral
with respect to savings and consumption,capital and labor, imports and
exports and whether companies pay dividends or retain earnings.

9% Business Flat Tax

Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses,
all capital investment, and net exports.
Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those
employed in the zone
9% Individual Flat Tax.

Gross income less charitable deductions.
Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living
and/or working in the zone.
9% National Sales Tax.

Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the
price of goods and services, this is a replacement tax. It replaces
taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher
marginal rates in the production process with lower marginal rates,
marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to prices
being the same or lower, not higher.
Economic Impact

According to former Reagan Treasury official Gary Robbins, of Fiscal
Associates, the 9-9-9 Plan will expand GDP by $2 trillion, create 6
million new jobs, increase business investment by one third, and
increase wages by 10%.
9-9-9 Plan: Summary

Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers
Provides the least incentive to evade taxes and the fewest
opportunities to do so
Lifts a $430 billion dead-weight burden on the economy due to
compliance, enforcement, collection, etc…
Is fair, simple, efficient, neutral, and transparent
Ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors
Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits
Exports leave our shores without the Business Tax or the Sales Tax
embedded in their cost, making them world class competitive. Imports
are subject to the same taxation as domestically produced goods,
leveling the playing field.
Lowest marginal rates on production
Kills the Death Tax
Allows immediate expensing of business investments
Eliminates double taxation of dividends
Increases capital formation which aids capital availability for small
businesses
Increased capital per worker drives productivity and wage growth
Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to
renew our inner cities
The pro-growth, pro-job, pro-export economic policies of the 9-9-9
PLAN equals a strong dollar policy
Phase 2 – The Fair Tax

Amidst a backdrop of the economic renewal created by the 9-9-9 Plan, I
will begin the process of educating the American people on the
benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.

Ultimately replaces individual and corporate income taxes
Ends the IRS as we know it and repeals the 16th Amendment


On Oct 21, 7:14 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Evening Michael,
>
> I am the first to agree that the real to most all economic problems in the
> United States today,  the real solution, is for government to quit
> spending.  Wenzel and I, as well as the majority of thinking Americans agree
> with this...The only individuals that apparently don't agree with this
> logical assertion are members of the 112th Congress....On both sides of the
> aisle.
>
> I did read Wenzel's article, and I stand by my initial observation.  Other
> members may see it differently, but Wenzel basically has no argument
> whatsoever against Cain's "9-9-9" Plan, or at least any argument that is a
> logical argument that he hasn't created out of pure fiction.  The only
> individual spewing fallacy is you, with your cut and paste crackpot articles
> from LewRockwell.com,  but I didn't come on here to sling nasty barbs.
>
> Wenzel specifically refers to Schiff's characterizing Cain's "9-9-9" Plan as
> having a "hidden 9% payroll tax;  what you term a "missing"  tax,  (*e.g*.;
> a payroll tax, which is not mentioned in Cain's "9-9-9" plan.   I have a
> deep respect for Peter Schiff, I think he is one of the better economists
> going right now,  and unlike you and Lew Rockwell, Mr. Schiff is a true
> Libertarian.   What Wenzel has  taken out of context, is Schiff's reference
> to Cain's "9-9-9" plan where would eliminate the deductibility of wages and
> salaries from corporate income,  and thus, Cain's 9% corporate tax would in
> essence be a 9% payroll tax.  This is but one flaw that Schiff points out,
> but Wenzel apparently didn't read Schiff's whole article:
>
> http://www.europac.net/commentaries/herman_cains_hidden_nine
>
> Although I understand Schiff's premise, I think he could have framed the
> issue a little better,  where crackpots like Wenzel with an agenda could
> have a better understanding, (if that is in fact Wenzel's goal,  to
> "understand"; but I doubt it)  and not mischaracterized Cain's plan and
> Schiff's article.  Cain's "9-9-9" plan  specifically points out that it
> forecloses any additional payroll tax, and will not create an additional
> payroll tax:
>
>  http://www.hermancain.com/999plan
>
> Where Schiff is correct, is that an elimination of deducting salaries and
> cost of labor will in fact be shifted to the cost of goods and services.
> What I am unsure of, is how Schiff is concluding that the "4th Hidden
> Payroll Tax" is created by the plan, unless Schiff is theorizing that like
> every other tax, the consumer will in fact foot the bill for such a cost.
> That is the way that it is now, with each and every tax that is mandated and
> force upon corporations,  they are passed along to the consumer.
>
> Again,  what is it that you found worthy of posting in Wenzel's article?
> Have you even read Cain's "9-9-9" plan?  I have read a number of articles
> from purported "economists"  who have not read the plan, and have still felt
> the need to criticize the plan,  for obvious reasons.....The plan would take
> away from a socialist-elitist agenda that the Democrats seem intent on
> maintaining, but that is a post for another evening.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > In your usual zeal to spew fallacy and hope no one notices, you apparently
> > FAILED to actually read the piece penned/put together by Wenzel. Sadly, this
> > is not that unusual. The answers to your feigned concerns are readily
> > identified within.
>
> > Wenzel notes the "revenue neutral" preposterousness.
> > Wenzel notes that there is actually ANOTHER "9" that is left out.
> > Wenzel notes that it opens a NEW (not currently used) tax.
> > Wenzel notes the REAL problem ... which is spending.
>
> > There are four (4) reasons you somehow could not 'find' -- four (4)
> > problems with the 'plan' identified.
>
> > There is no 'fair share' in this scheme. What is 'fair' about one person
> > paying more or less than another for the monopoly 'service' government?
>
> > Let me guess, you are in FAVOR of this Buffoon, Cain? You think government
> > should ALSO tax consumption?
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > "The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment
> > for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance
> > or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the
> > State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in
> > its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less
> > presumptuous, than the income tax." -- Murray Rothbard
>
> > At 07:31 PM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
>
> > Has anyone actually read this article by Robert Wenzel?
>
> > Can anyone find anywhere in this article, a reason, any reason whatsoever,
> > that Wenzel believes that Cain's "9-9-9"  plan is misplaced, other than his
> > repeated statement that a consumption tax falls on labor?
>
> > As if the federal and state income taxes don't?
>
> > The reality is,  Wenzel cannot find anything wrong with Cain's plan, other
> > than he objects to EVERYONE  paying their fair share, which is a typical
> > "socialist/Democratic Party" Class warfare ploy to keep the socialists and
> > Democratic Party Members entrenched within government.
>
> > As has been repeatedly pointed out here in PF as well as other blogs and
> > media sources,   there is approximately fifty percent of  Americans in this
> > Nation who pay no federal income taxes.   The tax burden, and I probably
> > should say a disporportionate percentage of the tax burden,  has been placed
> > on the "producers"  of this Nation, which is unfair.
>
> > Neither Wenzel's nor Wenzel's purported expert Murray Rothbard can come up
> > with any logical reason, nor can either demonstrate by fact or empirical
> > data, why a consumption tax will not work in this Nation!
>
> > A consumption tax is just that, it taxes consumption, and I cannot think of
> > anything that would be more fair, with the exception of a Constitutional
> > Amendment which would end a federal income tax, followed by a flat tax on
> > EVERYONE no exceptions, no loopholes,  no write-offs, period.
>
> > Once again,  more tripe from LewRockwell.com.....
>
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:41 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > Thursday, October 20, 2011
> >  Why Peter Schiff and Arthur Laffer Are Wrong about Herman Cain's 9-9-9
> > Tax Plan
> >  Posted by Robert Wenzel at 10:41 AM
>
> > Arthur Laffer and Peter Schiff have both come out in favor of Herman Cain's
> > 9-9-9 tax proposal. Laffer's endorsement<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020434610457663731031536...>is full strength: This
> > is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support.
>
> >  Schiff's endorsement is qualified, and I have taken some heat<http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/peter-schiff-endorses-he...>for calling it an endorsement, but aside from Schiff's qualification as to
> > what he calls a hidden additional 9% tax, it sure sounds like an endorsement
> > to me.
>
> > In his analysis of the Cain proposal, Schiff writes<http://www.europac.net/commentaries/herman_cains_hidden_nine>:
> > Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9%
> > flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales
> > tax. Great idea.
>
> >  and Schiff concludes by emphasising the hidden ninth tax and writes (My
> > emphasis): In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that
> > doesn't raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax. However,
> > the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the
> > federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If
> > he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.
>
> >  But, the problem is as much with the other three nines that Schiff calls
> > "a winning hand after all."
>
> > What do Schiff and Laffer like so much about Cain's plan. Here's Laffer: I
> > support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to
> > actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to
> > avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a
> > heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.
>
> >  Here's Schiff: Such a [9-9-9] system would unburden businesses, provide a
> > tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from
> > income generation
>
> >  Now, what needs to be kept in mind is that Cain's plan is designed to be
> > revenue neutral. Schiff would like to see elimination of the fourth hidden
> > 9% tax, but overall we are just talking about shifting the structure of
> > taxation, rather than reducing taxation. Murray Rothbard explained<http://mises.org/daily/1768>what this means: ...in
> > the immortal words of that exemplary economic czar and servant of
> > absolutism, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the task of the taxing authorities is to
> > "so pluck the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the
> > least amount of hissing." We the taxpayers, of course, are the geese.
>
> >  Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is about cutting down hissing. In other words, it's
> > a scam. He's a con-man playing a shell game.
>
> > Now, let's take a detailed look at this Cain con game and what Schiff likes
> > about the plan and what he doesn't.
>
> > Schiff writes: Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From
> > the employer's perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent
> > these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without
> > raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost
> > workers 15.3% of their wages. The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the
> > elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9%
> > payroll tax. Therefore a more accurate name for Cain's proposal could be the
> > 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.
>
> >  Schiff is correct here. The 9% tax resulting from the elimination of the
> > wage deductions will result in this tax cost being passed on to workers. It
> > will mean reduced wages by 9% and is a fourth cost.
>
> > Now, let's
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



New post on Bare Naked Islam

TLC's new 'reality' series ALL AMERICAN MUSLIM will be an 'educational' experience for all us ignorant infidels

by barenakedislam

The network's cameras follow the daily lives of five Muslim families in Dearbornistan, Michigan – apparently an area where many people with Lebanese, Iraqi, and Yemeni roots call home. We learned something already. (Oh goodie!) TLC announced on Wednesday that its new eight-episode reality series, All-American Muslim, will premiere on Sunday, Nov. 13 at 10 [...]

Read more of this post

barenakedislam | October 20, 2011 at 10:03 PM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-B8y

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/tlcs-new-reality-series-all-american-muslim-will-be-an-educational-experience-for-all-us-ignorant-infidels/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
OT:  FYI





La Nina Strikes Again! NOAA Predicts Colder, Wetter Winter for Northwest and
Central U.S.; Possible 'Snowmaggedon' in East By Matt Cover October 20, 2011
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-nina-strikes-again-noaa-predicts-colder-w
etter-winter-northwest-and-central-us

Winter Outlook

U.S. Winter Outlook (NOAA)

(CNSNews.com) - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
predicted Thursday that La Nina and the Arctic Oscillation would bring a
colder and wetter winter season to the Northwest and central regions of the
country--and potentially another 'Snowmaggedon' to the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic.

NOAA is predicting that winter precipitation could be as much as 50 percent
above the median in the Northwest and from 33 percent to 40 percent above
the median in parts of the Midwest.

"The winter outlook this year is shaped by the redevelopment of La Nina,"
Mike Halpert, deputy director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center said on a
conference call with reporters.

NOAA defines La Nina as "unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Equatorial
Pacific."

"In very general terms," NOAA's Halpert said, "the outlook favors colder,
and wetter than average conditions along the northern part of the nation
from the Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes and drier and warmer than
average conditions across much of the South, particularly in the southern
Plains.

"More specifically," he said, "a colder than average winter is most likely
right along the West Coast and across the northern Plains and Great Lakes
states, while a milder than average winter is favored across the south
central part of the nation, from the Southwest eastward across the southern
Plains to the central Gulf Coast."

NOAA said that precipitation would be heavier than usual in the northern
parts of the country and down the valleys of the Ohio and Tennessee rivers.

"Winter-time precipitation and potentially snowfall is most likely to exceed
median values across much of the northern part of the nation from the
Pacific Northwest across the central and northern Rockies, the northern
Plains and Great Lakes, and southward into the Ohio and Tennessee River
valleys," Halpert said.

NOAA also aid that an atmospheric effect known as the Arctic Oscillation
could intensify the winter in the East by bringing colder temperatures, thus
causing heavier snowfalls reminiscent of the "Snowmaggedon" storm that have
hit the region in 2009.

Explaining that the intensity of the coming winter will be determined not by
La Nina alone or by the Arctic Oscillation alone, but by the intensity and
interaction of the two phenomena, Halpert said, "It is important to note
however that the strength of U.S. impacts is not directly related to the
strength of La Nina."

In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states the primary factor will be the
Arctic Oscillation.

"The negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation pushes cold air into the U.S.
from Canada," said a NOAA press statement. "The Arctic Oscillation went
strongly negative at times the last two winters, causing outbreaks of cold
and snowy conditions in the U.S. such as the 'Snowmaggedon' storm of 2009."

NOAA said that if the Arctic Oscillation pushes cold air into the United
States, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic could see heavy snows again this
year.

"Winter weather for these regions is often driven not by La Niña but by the
Arctic Oscillation. If enough cold air and moisture are in place, areas
north of the Ohio Valley and into the Northeast could see above-average
snow," the NOAA press release explained.













--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Good Evening Michael,
 
I am the first to agree that the real to most all economic problems in the United States today,  the real solution, is for government to quit spending.  Wenzel and I, as well as the majority of thinking Americans agree with this...The only individuals that apparently don't agree with this logical assertion are members of the 112th Congress....On both sides of the aisle.
 
I did read Wenzel's article, and I stand by my initial observation.  Other members may see it differently, but Wenzel basically has no argument whatsoever against Cain's "9-9-9" Plan, or at least any argument that is a logical argument that he hasn't created out of pure fiction.  The only individual spewing fallacy is you, with your cut and paste crackpot articles from LewRockwell.com,  but I didn't come on here to sling nasty barbs. 
 
Wenzel specifically refers to Schiff's characterizing Cain's "9-9-9" Plan as having a "hidden 9% payroll tax;  what you term a "missing"  tax,  (e.g.; a payroll tax, which is not mentioned in Cain's "9-9-9" plan.   I have a deep respect for Peter Schiff, I think he is one of the better economists going right now,  and unlike you and Lew Rockwell, Mr. Schiff is a true Libertarian.   What Wenzel has  taken out of context, is Schiff's reference to Cain's "9-9-9" plan where would eliminate the deductibility of wages and salaries from corporate income,  and thus, Cain's 9% corporate tax would in essence be a 9% payroll tax.  This is but one flaw that Schiff points out, but Wenzel apparently didn't read Schiff's whole article:
 
 
Although I understand Schiff's premise, I think he could have framed the issue a little better,  where crackpots like Wenzel with an agenda could have a better understanding, (if that is in fact Wenzel's goal,  to "understand"; but I doubt it)  and not mischaracterized Cain's plan and Schiff's article.  Cain's "9-9-9" plan  specifically points out that it forecloses any additional payroll tax, and will not create an additional payroll tax:
 


Where Schiff is correct, is that an elimination of deducting salaries and cost of labor will in fact be shifted to the cost of goods and services.  What I am unsure of, is how Schiff is concluding that the "4th Hidden Payroll Tax" is created by the plan, unless Schiff is theorizing that like every other tax, the consumer will in fact foot the bill for such a cost.  That is the way that it is now, with each and every tax that is mandated and force upon corporations,  they are passed along to the consumer.
 
Again,  what is it that you found worthy of posting in Wenzel's article?  Have you even read Cain's "9-9-9" plan?  I have read a number of articles from purported "economists"  who have not read the plan, and have still felt the need to criticize the plan,  for obvious reasons.....The plan would take away from a socialist-elitist agenda that the Democrats seem intent on maintaining, but that is a post for another evening.
 
 
 
 
 
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

In your usual zeal to spew fallacy and hope no one notices, you apparently FAILED to actually read the piece penned/put together by Wenzel. Sadly, this is not that unusual. The answers to your feigned concerns are readily identified within.

Wenzel notes the "revenue neutral" preposterousness.
Wenzel notes that there is actually ANOTHER "9" that is left out.
Wenzel notes that it opens a NEW (not currently used) tax.
Wenzel notes the REAL problem ... which is spending.

There are four (4) reasons you somehow could not 'find' -- four (4) problems with the 'plan' identified.

There is no 'fair share' in this scheme. What is 'fair' about one person paying more or less than another for the monopoly 'service' government?


Let me guess, you are in FAVOR of this Buffoon, Cain? You think government should ALSO tax consumption?

Regard$,
--MJ

"The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax." -- Murray Rothbard



At 07:31 PM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
Has anyone actually read this article by Robert Wenzel?
 
Can anyone find anywhere in this article, a reason, any reason whatsoever, that Wenzel believes that Cain's "9-9-9"  plan is misplaced, other than his repeated statement that a consumption tax falls on labor? 
 
As if the federal and state income taxes don't?
 
The reality is,  Wenzel cannot find anything wrong with Cain's plan, other than he objects to EVERYONE  paying their fair share, which is a typical "socialist/Democratic Party" Class warfare ploy to keep the socialists and Democratic Party Members entrenched within government.
 
As has been repeatedly pointed out here in PF as well as other blogs and media sources,   there is approximately fifty percent of  Americans in this Nation who pay no federal income taxes.   The tax burden, and I probably should say a disporportionate percentage of the tax burden,  has been placed on the "producers"  of this Nation, which is unfair.  
 
Neither Wenzel's nor Wenzel's purported expert Murray Rothbard can come up with any logical reason, nor can either demonstrate by fact or empirical data, why a consumption tax will not work in this Nation! 
 
A consumption tax is just that, it taxes consumption, and I cannot think of anything that would be more fair, with the exception of a Constitutional Amendment which would end a federal income tax, followed by a flat tax on EVERYONE no exceptions, no loopholes,  no write-offs, period. 
 
Once again,  more tripe from LewRockwell.com.....
 
 
 


 
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Thursday, October 20, 2011
Why Peter Schiff and Arthur Laffer Are Wrong about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Plan
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 10:41 AM

Arthur Laffer and Peter Schiff have both come out in favor of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax proposal. Laffer's endorsement
is full strength:
This is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support.

Schiff's endorsement is qualified, and I have taken some heat for calling it an endorsement, but aside from Schiff's qualification as to what he calls a hidden additional 9% tax, it sure sounds like an endorsement to me.

In his analysis of the Cain proposal, Schiff writes:
Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea.

and Schiff concludes by emphasising the hidden ninth tax and writes (My emphasis):
In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn't raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax. However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.

But, the problem is as much with the other three nines that Schiff calls "a winning hand after all."

What do Schiff and Laffer like so much about Cain's plan. Here's Laffer:
I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.

Here's Schiff:
Such a [9-9-9] system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation

Now, what needs to be kept in mind is that Cain's plan is designed to be revenue neutral. Schiff would like to see elimination of the fourth hidden 9% tax, but overall we are just talking about shifting the structure of taxation, rather than reducing taxation. Murray Rothbard explained what this means:
...in the immortal words of that exemplary economic czar and servant of absolutism, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the task of the taxing authorities is to "so pluck the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing." We the taxpayers, of course, are the geese.

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is about cutting down hissing. In other words, it's a scam. He's a con-man playing a shell game.

Now, let's take a detailed look at this Cain con game and what Schiff likes about the plan and what he doesn't.

Schiff writes:
Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer's perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.3% of their wages.
The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more accurate name for Cain's proposal could be the 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.

Schiff is correct here. The 9% tax resulting from the elimination of the wage deductions will result in this tax cost being passed on to workers. It will mean reduced wages by 9% and is a fourth cost.

Now, let's look at what Schiff really likes about the 9-9-9 tax plan (My emphasis):
Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs.

But, Schiff is just plain wrong here. Just as Schiff points out that a tax shift ends up on labor because of the elimination of a tax deduction, a shift, which Schiff doesn't seem to recognize, will result because of the consumption tax. The tax will ultimately fall on labor and capital. Rothbard explains:
Having challenged the merits of the goal of taxing only consumption and freeing savings from taxation, we now proceed to deny the very possibility of achieving that goal, i.e., we maintain that a consumption tax will devolve, willy-nilly, into a tax on income and therefore on savings as well. In short, that even if, for the sake of argument, we should want to tax only consumption and not income, we should not be able to do so.... the sales tax is subject to an extra complication: the general assumption that a sales tax can be readily shifted forward to the consumer is totally fallacious. In fact, the sales tax cannot be shifted forward at all!...In the long run, of course, and that run is not very long, the retail firms will not be able to absorb a sales tax; they are not unlimited pools of wealth ready to be confiscated. As the retail firms suffer losses, their demand curves for all intermediate goods, and then for all factors of production, will shift sharply downward, and these declines in demand schedules will be rapidly transmitted to all the ultimate factors of production: labor, land, and interest income. And since all firms tend to earn a uniform interest return determined by social time preference, the incidence of the fall in demand curves will rest rather quickly on the two ultimate factors of production: land and labor.
Hence, the seemingly common-sense view that a retail sales tax will readily be shifted forward to the consumer is totally incorrect. In contrast, the initial impact of the tax will be on the net incomes of retail firms. Their severe losses will lead to a rapid downward shift in demand curves, backward to land and labor, i.e., to wage rates and ground rents. Hence, instead of the retail sales tax being quickly and painlessly shifted forward, it will, in a longer-run, be painfully shifted backward to the incomes of labor and landowners. Once again, an alleged tax on consumption, has been transmuted by the processes of the market into a tax on incomes.
Bottom line, the part of Cain's proposal that has Schiff most excited, the consumption tax, will ultimately not fall on consumers, but on the incomes of labor and landowners, exactly where Schiff doesn't want it to fall!

Schiff should be commended for pointing out that there is a fourth hidden 9% tax in Cain's proposal. But, there is a lot more that is wrong with Cain's plan. It first and foremost, through shell game antics, cuts down the hissing relative to the tax burden. It creates a new pipeline by which taxes can be raised, which Michelle Bachmann has correctly warned can easily lead to tax increases down the road. And, further, approval of elements of the plan (the consumer tax) in the fashion that Schiff gives approval, in addition to being wrong, lead to a grander endorsement of government micro-management of the economy. "Well, we cut this tax and increase that tax and it will really boost the economy." The problem is not the direction from which the taxes come, but the massive amount of government spending that goes on. Yes, Schiff does call for a cut in spending to eliminate the problem of the fourth 9 tax, but this is about micromanagement and fails to discuss the horrors of overall government spending in the economy.

Cain's 9-9-9 proposal does nothing to address that. It is designed to stop the hissing. It's understandable why Laffer is for the plan. He is all about stopping the hissing and keeping taxes revenues high. It is much more difficult to understand how Schiff can say anything positive about this Cain move of tricks to con the masses.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/why-peter-schiff-and-arthur-laffer-are.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0


------

Libertopia 2011 San Diego. Libertarians hold a rally for the 2nd Amendment Saturday in San Diego. Lots of hot men and women wearing guns at Libertopia.

If you are having problems viewing this email, copy and paste the following into your browser: http://s1140.photobucket.com/albums/n567/BruceMajors/Libertopia/?track=share_email_album_view_click


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0

The Consumption Tax: A Critique
Friday, October 21, 2005
by Murray N. Rothbard

[This article serves as a complete response to Alan Greenspan's call for a consumption tax. It originally appeared in the "Review of Austrian Economics," 1994, Volume 7, No. 2, pp. 75–90.]


The Alleged Superiority of the Income Tax

Orthodox neoclassical economics has long maintained that, from the point of view of the taxed themselves, an income tax is "better than" an excise tax on a particular form of consumption, since, in addition to the total revenue extracted, which is assumed to be the same in both cases, the excise tax weights the levy heavily against a particular consumer good. In addition to the total amount levied, therefore, an excise tax skews and distorts spending and resources away from the consumers' preferred consumption patterns. Indifference curves are trotted out with a flourish to lend the scientific patina of geometry to this demonstration.

As in many other cases when economists rush to judge various courses of action as "good," "superior," or "optimal," however, the ceteris paribus assumptions underlying such judgments ­ in this case, for example, that total revenue remains the same ­ do not always hold up in real life. Thus, it is certainly possible, for political or other reasons, that one particular form of tax is not likely to result in the same total revenue as another. The nature of a particular tax might lead to less or more revenue than another tax. Suppose, for example, that all present taxes are abolished and that the same total is to be raised from a new capitation, or head, tax, which requires that every inhabitant of the United States pay an equal amount to the support of federal, state, and local government. This would mean that the existing total government revenue of the United States, which we estimate at 1 trillion, 380 million dollars ­ and here exact figures are not important ­ would have to be divided between an approximate total of 243 million people. Which would mean that every man, woman, and child in America would be required to pay to government each and every year, $5,680. Somehow, I don't believe that anything like this large a sum could be collectible by the authorities, no matter how many enforcement powers are granted the IRS. A clear example where the ceteris paribus assumption flagrantly breaks down.

But a more important, if less dramatic, example is nearer at hand. Before World War II, Internal Revenue collected the full amount, in one lump sum, from every taxpayer, on March 15 of each year. (A month's extension was later granted to the long-suffering taxpayers.) During World War II, in order to permit an easier and far smoother collection of the far higher tax rates for financing the war effort, the federal government instituted a plan conceived by the ubiquitous Beardsley Ruml of R.H. Macy & Co., and technically implemented by a bright young economist at the Treasury Department, Milton Friedman. This plan, as all of us know only too well, coerced every employer into the unpaid labor of withholding the tax each month from the employee's paycheck and delivering it to the Treasury. As a result, there was no longer a need for the taxpayer to cough up the total amount in a lump sum each year. We were assured by one and all, at the time, that this new withholding tax was strictly limited to the wartime emergency, and would disappear at the arrival of peace. The rest, alas, is history. But the point is that no one can seriously maintain that an income tax deprived of withholding power, could be collected at its present high levels.

One reason, therefore, that an economist cannot claim that the income tax, or any other tax, is better from the point of view of the taxed person, is that total revenue collected is often a function of the type of tax imposed. And it would seem that, from the point of view of the taxed person, the less extracted from him the better. Even indifference-curve analysis would have to confirm that conclusion. If someone wishes to claim that a taxed person is disappointed at how little tax he is asked to pay, that person is always free to make up the alleged deficiency by making a voluntary gift to the bewildered but happy taxing authorities.[1]

A second insuperable problem with an economist's recommending any form of tax from the alleged point of view of the taxee, is that the taxpayer may well have particular subjective evaluations of the form of tax, apart from the total amount levied. Even if the total revenue extracted from him is the same for tax A and tax B, he may have very different subjective evaluations of the two taxing processes. Let us return, for example, to our case of the income as compared to an excise tax. Income taxes are collected in the course of a coercive and even brutal examination of virtually every aspect of every taxpayer's life by the all-seeing, all-powerful Internal Revenue Service. Each taxpayer, furthermore, is obliged by law to keep accurate records of his income and deductions, and then, painstakingly and truthfully, to fill out and submit the very forms that will tend to incriminate him into tax liability. An excise tax, say on whiskey or on movie admissions, will intrude directly on no one's life and income, but only into the sales of the movie theater or liquor store. I venture to judge that, in evaluating the "superiority" or "inferiority" of different modes of taxation, even the most determined imbiber or moviegoer would cheerfully pay far higher prices for whiskey or movies than neoclassical economists contemplate, in order to avoid the long arm of the IRS.[2]


The Forms of Consumption Tax

In recent years, the old idea of a consumption tax in contrast to an income tax has been put forward by many economists, particularly by allegedly pro-free-market conservatives. Before turning to a critique of the consumption tax as a substitute for the income tax, it should be noted that current proposals for a consumption tax would deprive taxpayers of the psychic joy of eradicating the IRS. For while the discussion is often couched in either-or terms, the various proposals really amount to adding a new consumption tax on top of the current massive armamentarium of taxing power. In short, seeing that income tax levels may have reached their political limits for the time being, our tax consultants and theoreticians are suggesting a shining new tax weapon for the government to wield. Or, in the immortal words of that exemplary economic czar and servant of absolutism, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the task of the taxing authorities is to "so pluck the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing." We the taxpayers, of course, are the geese.

But let us put the best face on the consumption-tax proposal, and deal with it as a complete replacement of the income tax by a consumption tax, with total revenue remaining the same. Our first point is that one venerable form of consumption tax not only retains existing IRS despotism but makes it even worse. This is the consumption tax first prominently proposed by Irving Fisher.[3] The Fisher tax would retain the IRS, as well as the requirement that everyone keep detailed and faithful records and truthfully estimate his own taxes. But it would add something else. In addition to reporting one's income and deductions, everyone would be required to report his additions to or subtractions from capital assets (including cash) over the year. Then, everyone would pay the designated tax rate on his income minus his addition to capital assets, or net consumption. Or, contrarily, if he spent more than he earned over the year, he would pay a tax on his income plus his reduction of capital assets, again equaling his net consumption. Whatever the other merits or demerits of the Fisherine tax, it would add to IRS power over every individual, since the state of his capital assets, including his stock of cash, would now be examined with the same care as his income.

A second proposed consumption tax, the VAT, or value-added tax, imposes a curious hierarchical tax on the "value added" by each firm and business. Here, instead of every individual, every business firm would be subjected to intense bureaucratic scrutiny, for each firm would be obliged to report its income and its expenditures, paying a designated tax on the net income. This would tend to distort the structure of business. For one thing, there would be an incentive for uneconomic vertical integration, since the fewer the number of times a sale takes place, the fewer the imposed taxes. Also, as has been happening in European countries with experience of the VAT, a flourishing industry may arise in issuing phony vouchers, so that businesses can overinflate their alleged expenditures, and reduce their reported value added. Surely a sales tax, other things being equal, is manifestly both simpler, less distorting of resources, and enormously less bureaucratic and despotic than the VAT. Indeed the VAT seems to have no clear advantage over the sales tax, except of course, if multiplying bureaucracy and bureaucratic power is considered a benefit.

The third type of consumption tax is the familiar percentage tax on retail sales. Of the various forms of consumption tax, the sales tax surely has the great advantage, for most of us, of eliminating the despotic power of the government over the life of every individual, as in the income tax, or over each business firm, as in the VAT. It would not distort the production structure as would the VAT, and it would not skew individual preferences as would specific excise taxes.

Let us now consider the merits or demerits of a consumption as against an income tax, setting aside the question of bureaucratic power. It should first be noted that the consumption tax and the income tax each carry distinct philosophical implications. The income tax rests necessarily on the ability-to-pay principle, namely the principle that if a goose has more feathers it is more ripe for the plucking. The ability-to-pay principle is precisely the creed of the highwayman, of taking where the taking is good, of extracting as much as the victims can bear. The ability-to-pay principle is the philosophical embodiment of the memorable answer of Willie Sutton when he was asked, perhaps by a psychological social worker, why he robbed banks. "Because," answered Willie, "that's where the money is."

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.


Proportionality and Progressivity: Who? Whom?

One of the suggested virtues of the consumption tax advanced by conservatives is that, while the income tax can be and generally is progressive, the consumption tax is virtually automatically proportional. It is also claimed that progressive taxation is tantamount to theft, with the poor robbing the rich, whereas proportionality is the fair and ideal tax. In the first place, however, the Fisher-type consumption tax could well be every bit as progressive as the income tax. Even the sales tax is scarcely free from progressivity. For most sales taxes in practice exempt such products as food, exemptions that distort individual market preferences and also introduce progressivity of taxation.

But is progressivity really the problem? Let us take two individuals, one who makes $10,000 a year and another who makes $100,000. Let us posit two alternative tax systems: one proportional, the other steeply progressive. In the progressive tax system, income tax rates range from 1 percent for the $10,000-a-year man, to 15 percent for the man with the higher income. In the succeeding proportional system, let us assume, everyone, regardless of income, pays the same 30 percent of his income. In the progressive system, the low-income man pays $100 a year in taxes, and the wealthier pays $15,000, whereas in the allegedly fairer proportional system, the poorer man pays $3000 instead of $100, while the wealthier pays $30,000 instead of $15,000. It is, however, small consolation to the higher-income person that the poorer man is paying the same percentage of income in tax as he, for the wealthier person is being mulcted far more than before. It is unconvincing, therefore, to the richer man to be told that he is now no longer being "robbed" by the poor, since he is losing far more than before. If it is objected that the total level of taxation is far higher under our posited proportional than progressive system, we reply that that is precisely the point. For what the higher-income person is really objecting to is not the mythical robbery inflicted upon him by "the poor"; his problem is the very real amount being extracted from him by the State. The wealthier man's real complaint, then, is not how badly he is being treated relative to someone else, but how much money is being extracted from his own hard-earned assets. We submit that progressivity of taxes is a red herring; that the real problem and proper focus should be on the amount that any given individual is obliged to surrender to the State.[4]

The State, of course, spends the money it receives on various groups, and those who claim that progressive taxation mulcts the rich on behalf of the poor argue by comparing the income status of the taxpayers with those on the receiving end of the State's largess. Similarly, the Chicago School claims that the tax system is a process by which the middle class exploits both the rich and the poor, while the New Left insists that taxes are a process by which the rich exploit the poor. All of these attempts misfire by unjustifiably bracketing as one class the payers to, and recipients from, the State. Those who pay taxes to the State, be they wealthy, middle class or poor, are certainly on net, a different set of people than those wealthy, middle-class, or poor, who receive money from State coffers, which notably includes politicians and bureaucrats as well as those who receive favors from these members of the State apparatus. It makes no sense to lump these groups together. It makes far more sense to realize that the process of tax and expenditures creates two and only two separate, distinct, antagonistic social classes, what Calhoun brilliantly identified as the (net) taxpayers and the (net) tax consumers, those who pay taxes and those who live off them. I submit that, looked at in this perspective, it also becomes particularly important to minimize the burdens which the State and its privileged tax consumers place on the productivity of the taxpayers.[5]


The Problem of Taxing Savings

The major argument for replacing an income by a consumption tax is that savings would no longer be taxed. A consumption tax, its advocates assert, would tax consumption and not savings. The fact that this argument is generally advanced by free-market economists, in our day mainly by the supply-siders, strikes one immediately as rather peculiar. For individuals on the free market, after all, each decide their own allocation of income to consumption or to savings. This proportion of consumption to savings, as Austrian economics teaches us, is determined by each individual's rate of time preference, the degree by which he prefers present to future goods. For each person is continually allocating his income between consumption now, as against saving to invest in goods that will bring an income in the future. And each person decides the allocation on the basis of his time preference. To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals.

We must, then, ask, By what standards do the supply-siders and other advocates of consumption taxes decide why and to what extent savings are too low and consumption too high? What are their criteria of "too low" or "too much," on which they base their proposed coercion over individual choice? And what is more, by what right do they call themselves advocates of the "free market" when they propose to dictate choices in such a vital realm as the proportion between present and future consumption?

Supply-siders consider themselves heirs of Adam Smith, and in one sense they are right. For Smith, too, driven in his case by a deep-seated Calvinist hostility to luxurious consumption, sought to use government to raise the social proportion of investment to consumption beyond the desires of the free market. One method he advocated was high taxes on luxurious consumption; another was usury laws, to drive interest rates below the free-market level, and thereby coercively channel or ration savings and credit into the hands of sober, industrious prime business borrowers, and out of the hands of "projectors" and "prodigal" consumers who would be willing to pay high interest charges. Indeed, through the device of the ghostly Impartial Spectator, who, in contrast to real human beings, is indifferent to the time at which he will receive goods, Smith virtually held a zero rate of time preference to be the ideal.[6]

The only coherent argument offered by advocates of consumption against income taxation is that of Irving Fisher, based on suggestions in John Stuart Mill.[7] Fisher argued that, since the goal of all production is consumption, and since all capital goods are only way stations on the way to consumption, the only genuine income is consumption spending. The conclusion is quickly drawn that therefore only consumption income, not what is generally called "income," should be subject to tax.

More specifically, savings and consumption, it is alleged, are not really symmetrical. All saving is directed toward enjoying more consumption in the future. Potential present consumption is foregone in return for an expected increase in future consumption. The argument concludes that therefore any return on investment can only be considered a "double counting" of income, in the same way that a repeated counting of the gross sales of, say, a case of Wheaties from manufacturer to jobber to wholesaler to retailer as part of net income or product would be a multiple counting of the same good.

This reasoning is correct as far as it goes in explaining the consumption-savings process, and is quite helpful in leveling a critique of conventional national income or product statistics. For these statistics carefully leave out all double or multiple counting in order to arrive at total net product, yet they arbitrarily include in total net income, investment in all capital goods lasting longer than one year ­ a clear example itself of double counting. Thus, the current practice absurdly excludes from net income a merchant's investment in inventory lasting 11 months before sale, but includes in net income investment in inventory lasting for 13 months. The cogent conclusion is that an estimate of social or national income should include only consumer spending.[8]

Despite the many virtues of the Fisher analysis, however, it is impermissible to leap to the conclusion that only consumption should be taxed rather than income. It is true that savings leads to a greater supply of consumer goods in the future. But this fact is known to all persons; that is precisely why people save. The market, in short, knows all about the productive power of savings for the future, and allocates its expenditures accordingly. Yet even though people know that savings will yield them more future consumption, why don't they save all their current income? Clearly, because of their time preferences for present as against future consumption. These time preferences govern people's allocation between present and future. Every individual, given his money "income" ­ defined in conventional terms ­ and his value scales, will allocate that income in the most desired proportion between consumption and investment. Any other allocation of such income, any different proportions, would therefore satisfy his wants and desires to a lesser extent and lower his position on his value scale. It is therefore incorrect to say that an income tax levies an extra burden on savings and investment; it penalizes an individual's entire standard of living, present and future. An income tax does not penalize saving per se any more than it penalizes consumption.

Hence, the Fisher analysis, for all its sophistication, simply shares the other consumption-tax advocates' prejudices against the voluntary free-market allocations between consumption and investment. The argument places greater weight on savings and investment than the market does. A consumption tax is just as disruptive of voluntary time preferences and market allocations as is a tax on savings. In most or all other areas of the market, free-market economists understand that allocations on the market tend always to be optimal with respect to satisfying consumers' desires. Why then do they all too often make an exception of consumption-savings allocations, refusing to respect time-preference rates on the market?

Perhaps the answer is that economists are subject to the same temptations as anyone else. One of these temptations is to call loudly for you, him, and the other guy to work harder, and save and invest more, thereby increasing one's own present and future standards of living. A follow-up temptation is to call for the gendarmes to enforce that desire. Whatever we may call this temptation, economic science has nothing to do with it.


The Impossibility of Taxing Only Consumption

Having challenged the merits of the goal of taxing only consumption and freeing savings from taxation, we now proceed to deny the very possibility of achieving that goal, i.e., we maintain that a consumption tax will devolve, willy-nilly, into a tax on income and therefore on savings as well. In short, that even if, for the sake of argument, we should want to tax only consumption and not income, we should not be able to do so.

Let us take, first, the Fisher plan, which, seemingly straightforward, would exempt saving and tax only consumption. Let us take Mr. Jones, who earns an annual income of $100,000. His time preferences lead him to spend 90 percent of his income on consumption, and save and invest the other 10 percent. On this assumption, he will spend $90,000 a year on consumption, and save-and-invest the other $10,000. Let us assume now that the government levies a 20 percent tax on Jones's income, and that his time-preference schedule remains the same. The ratio of his consumption to savings will still be 90:10, and so, after-tax income now being $80,000, his consumption spending will be $72,000 and his saving-investment $8,000 per year.[9]

Suppose now that instead of an income tax, the government follows the Irving Fisher scheme, and levies a 20 percent annual tax on Jones's consumption. Fisher maintained that such a tax would fall only on consumption, and not on Jones's savings. But this claim is incorrect, since Jones's entire savings-investment is based solely on the possibility of his future consumption, which will be taxed equally. Since future consumption will be taxed, we assume, at the same rate as consumption at present, we cannot conclude that savings in the long run receives any tax exemption or special encouragement. There will therefore be no shift by Jones in favor of savings-and-investment due to a consumption tax.[10] In sum, any payment of taxes to the government, whether they be consumption or income, necessarily reduces Jones's net income. Since his time-preference schedule remains the same, Jones will therefore reduce his consumption and his savings proportionately. The consumption tax will be shifted by Jones until it becomes equivalent to a lower rate of tax on his own income. If Jones still spends 90 percent of his net income on consumption, and 10 percent on savings-investment, his net income will be reduced by $15,000, instead of $20,000, and his consumption will now total $76,000, and his savings-investment $9,000. In other words, Jones's 20 percent consumption tax will become equivalent to a 15 percent tax on his income, and he will arrange his consumption-savings proportions accordingly.[11]

We saw at the beginning of this paper that an excise tax skewing resources away from more desirable goods does not necessarily mean we can recommend an alternative, such as an income tax. But how about a general sales tax, assuming that one can be levied politically with no exemptions of goods or services? Wouldn't such a tax burden be only on consumption and not income?

In the first place, a sales tax would be subject to the same problems as the Fisher consumption tax. Since future and present consumption would be taxed equally, there would again be shifting by each individual so that future as well as present consumption would be reduced. But, furthermore, the sales tax is subject to an extra complication: the general assumption that a sales tax can be readily shifted forward to the consumer is totally fallacious. In fact, the sales tax cannot be shifted forward at all!

Consider: all prices are determined by the interaction of supply, the stock of goods available to be sold, and by the demand schedule for that good. If the government levies a general 20 percent tax on all retail sales, it is true that retailers will now incur an additional 20 percent cost on all sales. But how can they raise prices to cover these costs? Prices, at all times, tend to be set at the maximum net revenue point for each seller. If the sellers can simply pass the 20 percent increase in costs onto the consumers, why did they have to wait until a sales tax to raise prices? Prices are already at highest net income levels for each firm. Any increase in cost, therefore, will have to be absorbed by the firm; it cannot be passed forward to the consumers. Put another way, the levy of a sales tax has not changed the stock already available to the consumers; that stock has already been produced. Demand curves have not changed, and there is no reason for them to do so. Since supply and demand have not changed, neither will price. Or, looking at the situation from the point of the demand and supply of money, which help determine general price levels, the supply of money has remained as given, and there is also no reason to assume a change in the demand for cash balances either. Hence, prices will remain the same.

It might be objected that, even though shifting forward to higher prices cannot occur immediately, it can do so in the longer run, when factor and resources owners will have a chance to lower their supply at a later point in time. It is true that a partial excise can be shifted forward in this way, in the long run, by resources leaving, let us say, the liquor industry and shifting into other untaxed industries. After a while, then, the price of liquor can be raised by a liquor tax, but only by reducing the future supply, the stock of liquor available for sale at a future date. But such "shifting" is not a painless and prompt passing on of a higher price to consumers; it can only be accomplished in a longer run by a reduction in the supply of a good.

The burden of a sales tax cannot be shifted forward in the same way, however. For resources cannot escape a sales tax as they can an excise tax ­ by leaving the liquor industry and moving to another. We are assuming that the sales tax is general and uniform; it cannot therefore, be escaped by resources except by fleeing into idleness. Hence, we cannot maintain that the sales tax will be shifted forward in the long run by all supplies of goods falling by something like 20 percent (depending on elasticities). General supplies of goods will fall, and hence prices rise, only to the relatively modest extent that labor, seeing a rise in the opportunity cost of leisure because of a drop in wage incomes, will leave the labor force and become voluntarily idle (or more generally will lower the number of hours worked).[12]

In the long run, of course, and that run is not very long, the retail firms will not be able to absorb a sales tax; they are not unlimited pools of wealth ready to be confiscated. As the retail firms suffer losses, their demand curves for all intermediate goods, and then for all factors of production, will shift sharply downward, and these declines in demand schedules will be rapidly transmitted to all the ultimate factors of production: labor, land, and interest income. And since all firms tend to earn a uniform interest return determined by social time preference, the incidence of the fall in demand curves will rest rather quickly on the two ultimate factors of production: land and labor.

Hence, the seemingly common-sense view that a retail sales tax will readily be shifted forward to the consumer is totally incorrect. In contrast, the initial impact of the tax will be on the net incomes of retail firms. Their severe losses will lead to a rapid downward shift in demand curves, backward to land and labor, i.e., to wage rates and ground rents. Hence, instead of the retail sales tax being quickly and painlessly shifted forward, it will, in a longer run, be painfully shifted backward to the incomes of labor and landowners. Once again, an alleged tax on consumption, has been transmuted by the processes of the market into a tax on incomes.

The general stress on forward shifting, and neglect of backward shifting, in economics is due to the disregard of the Austrian theory of value, and its insight that market price is determined only by the interaction of an already-produced stock, with the subjective utilities and demand schedules of consumers for that stock. The market supply curve, therefore, should be vertical in the usual supply-demand diagram. The standard Marshallian forward-sloping supply curve illegitimately incorporates a time dimension within it, and it therefore cannot interact with an instantaneous, or freeze-frame, market-demand curve. The Marshallian curve sustains the illusion that higher cost can directly raise prices, and not only indirectly by reducing supply. And while we may arrive at the same conclusion as Marshallian supply-curve analysis for a particular excise tax, where partial equilibrium can be used, this standard method breaks down for general sales taxation.


Conclusion: The Amount vs. the Form of Taxation

We conclude with the observation that there has been far too much concentration on the form, the type of taxation, and not enough on its total amount. The result has been endless tinkering with kinds of taxes, coupled with neglect of a far more critical question: how much of the social product should be siphoned away from the producers? Or, how much income should be retained by the producers and how much income and resources coercively diverted for the benefit of nonproducers?

It is particularly odd that economists who proudly refer to themselves as advocates of the free market have in recent years led the way in this mistaken path. It was allegedly free-market economists for example who pioneered in and propagandized for the alleged Tax Reform Act of 1986. This massive change was supposed to bring us "simplification" of our income taxes. The result, of course, was so simple that even the IRS, let alone the fleet of tax lawyers and tax accountants, has had great difficulty in understanding the new dispensation. Peculiarly, moreover, in all the maneuverings that led to the Tax Reform Act, the standard held up by these economists, a standard apparently so self-evident as to need no justification, was that the sum of tax changes be "revenue neutral." But they never told us what is so great about revenue neutrality. And of course, by cleaving to such a standard, the crucial question of total revenue was deliberately precluded from the discussion.

Even more egregious was an early doctrine of another group of supposed free-market advocates, the supply-siders. In their original Laffer-curve manifestation, now happily consigned to the dustbin of history, the supply-siders maintained that the tax rate that maximizes tax revenue is the "voluntary" rate, and a rate that should be diligently pursued. It was never pointed out in what sense such a tax rate is "voluntary," or what in the world the concept of "voluntary" has to do with taxation in the first place. Much less did the supply-siders in their Lafferite form ever instruct us why we must all uphold maximizing government revenue as our beau idéal. Surely, for free-market proponents, one might think that minimizing government depredation of the private product would be a bit more appealing.

It is with relief that one turns for a realistic as well as a genuine free-market approach to Jean-Baptiste Say, who contributed considerably more to economics than Say's law. Say was under no illusion that taxation is voluntary nor that government spending contributes productive services to the economy. Say pointed out that, in taxation,

The government exacts from a taxpayer the payment of a given tax in the shape of money. To meet this demand, the taxpayer exchanges part of the products at his disposal for coin, which he pays to the tax-gatherers.

Eventually, the government spends the money on its own needs, so that

in the end … this value is consumed; and then the portion of wealth, which passes from the hands of the taxpayer into those of the tax-gatherer, is destroyed and annihilated.

Note that, as in the case of the later Calhoun, Say sees that taxation creates two conflicting classes, the taxpayers and the tax gatherers. Were it not for taxes, the taxpayer would have spent his money on his own consumption. As it is, "The state … enjoys the satisfaction resulting from that consumption."

Say proceeds to denounce the

prevalent notion, that the values, paid by the community for the public service, return it again … that what government and its agents receive, is refunded again by their expenditures.

Say angrily comments that this "gross fallacy … has been productive of infinite mischief, inasmuch as it has been the pretext for a great deal of shameless waste and dilapidation."

On the contrary, Say declares, "the value paid to government by the taxpayer is given without equivalent or return; it is expended by the government in the purchase of personal service, of objects of consumption."

Say goes on to denounce the "false and dangerous conclusion" of economic writers that government consumption increases wealth. Say noted bitterly that "if such principles were to be found only in books, and had never crept into practice one might suffer them without care or regret to swell the monstrous heap of printed absurdity."

But unfortunately, he noted, these notions have been put into "practice by the agents of public authority, who can enforce error and absurdity at the point of a bayonet or mouth of the cannon."[13] Taxation, then, for Say is

the transfer of a portion of the national products from the hands of individuals to those of the government, for the purpose of meeting the public consumption of expenditure.… It is virtually a burthen imposed upon individuals, either in a separate or corporate character, by the ruling power … for the purpose of supplying the consumption it may think proper to make at their expense.[14]


But taxation, for Say, is not merely a zero-sum game. By levying a burden on the producers, he points out, taxes, over time, cripple production itself. Writes Say,

Taxation deprives the producer of a product, which he would otherwise have the option of deriving a personal gratification from, if consumed … or of turning to profit, if he preferred to devote it to an useful employment.… [T]herefore, the subtraction of a product must needs diminish, instead of augmenting, productive power.

J.B. Say's policy recommendation was crystal clear and consistent with his analysis and that of the present paper. "The best scheme of [public] finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest."




Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. See Murray N. Rothbard's article archives.

This article serves as a complete response to Alan Greenspan's call for a consumption tax. It originally appeared in the "Review of Austrian Economics," 1994, Volume 7, No. 2, pp. 75–90. Download PDF It appeared on Mises.org on March 18, 2005.



Notes

[1] In 1619, Father Pedro Fernandez Navarrete, "Canonist Chaplain and Secretary of his High Majesty," published a book of advice to the Spanish monarch. Sternly advising a drastic cut in taxation and government spending, Father Navarrete recommended that, in the case of sudden emergencies, the king rely soley on soliciting voluntary donations. Alejandro Antonio Chafuen, Christians for Freedom: Late Scholastic Economics (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 68.

[2] It is particularly poignant, on or near any April 15, to contemplate the dictum of Father Navarrete, that "the only agreeable country is the one where no one is afraid of tax collectors," Chafuen, Christians for Freedom, p. 73. Also see Murray N. Rothbard, "Review of A. Chafuen, Christians for Freedom: Late Scholastic Economics," International Philosophical Quarterly 28 (March 1988): 112–14.

[3] See, for example, Irving and Herbert N. Fisher, Constructive Income Taxation (New York: Harper, 1942).

[4] For a fuller treatment, and a discussion of who is being robbed by whom, see Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy, 2nd ed. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1977), pp. 120–21.

[5] See Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles.

[6] See the illuminating article by Roger W. Garrision, "West's 'Cantillon and Adam Smith': A Comment," Journal of Libertarian Studies 7 (Fall 1985): 291–92. Download PDF

[7] See Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 98–100.

[8] We omit here the fascinating question of how government's activities should be treated in national income statistics. See Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, 2, pp. 815–20; idem, Power and Market, pp. 199–201; idem, America's Great Depression, 4th ed. (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1983), pp. 296–304; Robert Batemarco, "GNP, PPR, and the Standard of Living," Review of Austrian Economics 1 (1987): 181–86.

[9] We set aside the fact that, at the lower amount of money assets left to him, Jones's time-preference rate, given his time-preference schedule, will be higher, so that his consumption will be higher, and his savings lower, than we have assumed.

[10] In fact, per note 9, supra, there will be a shift in favor of consumption because a diminished amount of money will shift the taxpayer's time preference rate in the direction of consumption. Hence, paradoxically, a pure tax on consumption will and up taxing savings more than consumption! See Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 108–11.

[11] If net income is defined as gross income minus amount paid in taxes, and for Jones, consumption is 90 percent of net income, a 20 percent consumption tax on $100,000 income will be tantamount to a 15 percent tax on this income. Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 108–11. The basic formula is that net income,
Forumla 1

where G=gross income, t=the tax rate on consumption, and c, consumption as percent of net income, are givens of the problem, and N = G – T by definition, where T is the amount paid in consumption tax.

[12] Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 88-93. Also see the notable article by Harry Gunnison Brown, "The Incidence of a General Sales Tax," in Readings in the Economics of Taxation, R. Musgrave and C. Shoup, eds. (Homewood, Ill: Irwin, 1959), pp. 330–39.

[13] Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Heffelfinger, 1880), pp. 412–15. Also see Murray N. Rothbard, "The Myth of Neutral Taxation," Cato Journal 1 (Fall 1981): 551–54.

[14] Say, Treatise, p. 446.

http://mises.org/daily/1768/The-Consumption-Tax-A-Critique

In your usual zeal to spew fallacy and hope no one notices, you apparently FAILED to actually read the piece penned/put together by Wenzel. Sadly, this is not that unusual. The answers to your feigned concerns are readily identified within.

Wenzel notes the "revenue neutral" preposterousness.
Wenzel notes that there is actually ANOTHER "9" that is left out.
Wenzel notes that it opens a NEW (not currently used) tax.
Wenzel notes the REAL problem ... which is spending.

There are four (4) reasons you somehow could not 'find' -- four (4) problems with the 'plan' identified.

There is no 'fair share' in this scheme. What is 'fair' about one person paying more or less than another for the monopoly 'service' government?


Let me guess, you are in FAVOR of this Buffoon, Cain? You think government should ALSO tax consumption?

Regard$,
--MJ

"The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax." -- Murray Rothbard



At 07:31 PM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
Has anyone actually read this article by Robert Wenzel?
 
Can anyone find anywhere in this article, a reason, any reason whatsoever, that Wenzel believes that Cain's "9-9-9"  plan is misplaced, other than his repeated statement that a consumption tax falls on labor? 
 
As if the federal and state income taxes don't?
 
The reality is,  Wenzel cannot find anything wrong with Cain's plan, other than he objects to EVERYONE  paying their fair share, which is a typical "socialist/Democratic Party" Class warfare ploy to keep the socialists and Democratic Party Members entrenched within government.
 
As has been repeatedly pointed out here in PF as well as other blogs and media sources,   there is approximately fifty percent of  Americans in this Nation who pay no federal income taxes.   The tax burden, and I probably should say a disporportionate percentage of the tax burden,  has been placed on the "producers"  of this Nation, which is unfair.  
 
Neither Wenzel's nor Wenzel's purported expert Murray Rothbard can come up with any logical reason, nor can either demonstrate by fact or empirical data, why a consumption tax will not work in this Nation! 
 
A consumption tax is just that, it taxes consumption, and I cannot think of anything that would be more fair, with the exception of a Constitutional Amendment which would end a federal income tax, followed by a flat tax on EVERYONE no exceptions, no loopholes,  no write-offs, period. 
 
Once again,  more tripe from LewRockwell.com.....
 
 
 


 
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Thursday, October 20, 2011
Why Peter Schiff and Arthur Laffer Are Wrong about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Plan
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 10:41 AM

Arthur Laffer and Peter Schiff have both come out in favor of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax proposal. Laffer's endorsement is full strength:
This is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support.

Schiff's endorsement is qualified, and I have taken some heat for calling it an endorsement, but aside from Schiff's qualification as to what he calls a hidden additional 9% tax, it sure sounds like an endorsement to me.

In his analysis of the Cain proposal, Schiff writes:
Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea.

and Schiff concludes by emphasising the hidden ninth tax and writes (My emphasis):
In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn't raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax. However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.

But, the problem is as much with the other three nines that Schiff calls "a winning hand after all."

What do Schiff and Laffer like so much about Cain's plan. Here's Laffer:
I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.

Here's Schiff:
Such a [9-9-9] system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation

Now, what needs to be kept in mind is that Cain's plan is designed to be revenue neutral. Schiff would like to see elimination of the fourth hidden 9% tax, but overall we are just talking about shifting the structure of taxation, rather than reducing taxation. Murray Rothbard explained what this means:
...in the immortal words of that exemplary economic czar and servant of absolutism, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the task of the taxing authorities is to "so pluck the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing." We the taxpayers, of course, are the geese.

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is about cutting down hissing. In other words, it's a scam. He's a con-man playing a shell game.

Now, let's take a detailed look at this Cain con game and what Schiff likes about the plan and what he doesn't.

Schiff writes:
Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer's perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.3% of their wages.
The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more accurate name for Cain's proposal could be the 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.

Schiff is correct here. The 9% tax resulting from the elimination of the wage deductions will result in this tax cost being passed on to workers. It will mean reduced wages by 9% and is a fourth cost.

Now, let's look at what Schiff really likes about the 9-9-9 tax plan (My emphasis):
Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs.

But, Schiff is just plain wrong here. Just as Schiff points out that a tax shift ends up on labor because of the elimination of a tax deduction, a shift, which Schiff doesn't seem to recognize, will result because of the consumption tax. The tax will ultimately fall on labor and capital. Rothbard explains:
Having challenged the merits of the goal of taxing only consumption and freeing savings from taxation, we now proceed to deny the very possibility of achieving that goal, i.e., we maintain that a consumption tax will devolve, willy-nilly, into a tax on income and therefore on savings as well. In short, that even if, for the sake of argument, we should want to tax only consumption and not income, we should not be able to do so.... the sales tax is subject to an extra complication: the general assumption that a sales tax can be readily shifted forward to the consumer is totally fallacious. In fact, the sales tax cannot be shifted forward at all!...In the long run, of course, and that run is not very long, the retail firms will not be able to absorb a sales tax; they are not unlimited pools of wealth ready to be confiscated. As the retail firms suffer losses, their demand curves for all intermediate goods, and then for all factors of production, will shift sharply downward, and these declines in demand schedules will be rapidly transmitted to all the ultimate factors of production: labor, land, and interest income. And since all firms tend to earn a uniform interest return determined by social time preference, the incidence of the fall in demand curves will rest rather quickly on the two ultimate factors of production: land and labor.
Hence, the seemingly common-sense view that a retail sales tax will readily be shifted forward to the consumer is totally incorrect. In contrast, the initial impact of the tax will be on the net incomes of retail firms. Their severe losses will lead to a rapid downward shift in demand curves, backward to land and labor, i.e., to wage rates and ground rents. Hence, instead of the retail sales tax being quickly and painlessly shifted forward, it will, in a longer-run, be painfully shifted backward to the incomes of labor and landowners. Once again, an alleged tax on consumption, has been transmuted by the processes of the market into a tax on incomes.
Bottom line, the part of Cain's proposal that has Schiff most excited, the consumption tax, will ultimately not fall on consumers, but on the incomes of labor and landowners, exactly where Schiff doesn't want it to fall!

Schiff should be commended for pointing out that there is a fourth hidden 9% tax in Cain's proposal. But, there is a lot more that is wrong with Cain's plan. It first and foremost, through shell game antics, cuts down the hissing relative to the tax burden. It creates a new pipeline by which taxes can be raised, which Michelle Bachmann has correctly warned can easily lead to tax increases down the road. And, further, approval of elements of the plan (the consumer tax) in the fashion that Schiff gives approval, in addition to being wrong, lead to a grander endorsement of government micro-management of the economy. "Well, we cut this tax and increase that tax and it will really boost the economy." The problem is not the direction from which the taxes come, but the massive amount of government spending that goes on. Yes, Schiff does call for a cut in spending to eliminate the problem of the fourth 9 tax, but this is about micromanagement and fails to discuss the horrors of overall government spending in the economy.

Cain's 9-9-9 proposal does nothing to address that. It is designed to stop the hissing. It's understandable why Laffer is for the plan. He is all about stopping the hissing and keeping taxes revenues high. It is much more difficult to understand how Schiff can say anything positive about this Cain move of tricks to con the masses.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/why-peter-schiff-and-arthur-laffer-are.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.