You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
25% National Sales Tax?
2009-05-27
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#30  CrazyFool: The gov is welcome to confiscating the Gov Student Loans for my kids.....
Damned education didn't do a whit for any invisible real jobs for the kids so I am stuck with both sides of the loans.... Parent+ and Kids+
Oh and the illegal aliens in Cal got free tuition while I paid out of state for my oldest. (and still pay...) Its not right, proper or acceptable - its worse then robbery.
Posted by: 3dc   2009-05-27 23:46  

#29  DMFD - Wasn't there talk about confiscating everyone's IRA and 401K and putting it into a Government program like Social Security?

Because the likes of Obama, Barny Frank and Chris Dodd obviously know better then you do how you should invest your money.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-05-27 23:06  

#28  This will put the recession into a depression and the costs of everything will skyrocket
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-05-27 21:40  

#27  You can be absolutely sure that if Obama and the Dems get their way, you'll see a 25% national sales tax PLUS a 'progressive' income tax. Won't be surprised if they start taxing IRA's and 401K's too.
Posted by: DMFD   2009-05-27 20:57  

#26  I hate the idea of a new tax, however the vast majority of the voting public pay no income taxes. If they did, they might start to vote a leeeetle bit differently
Posted by: Frank G   2009-05-27 20:44  

#25  Is writing a check that your account can't cover a crime?
Posted by: IRS Man   2009-05-27 20:15  

#24  One caveat. Don't implement a VAT now, since it would only result in massive tax increases to fund government deficits. Only when finances are more sound and net taxes collection can be neutral.
Posted by: ed   2009-05-27 20:11  

#23  Actually I support a VAT. Now over half of households pay essentially no income tax. They only see the benefits of free government money. They don't see the labor of those who work long hours to pay for government. When the freeloaders see 25% disappear from the top of their purchases, maybe they will rethink their insatiable appetite for more government cheese.
Posted by: ed   2009-05-27 20:07  

#22  My God, what is going on in the USA?

The citizens were scared and conned into electing a Marxist for president when a Marxist can't even get elected dog catcher in any town. Fun and scary isn't it when France and Japan are now considered more belligerent than the USA.
Posted by: ed   2009-05-27 20:01  

#21  401K ⇒ 404 Not Found
Posted by: James   2009-05-27 18:17  

#20  America, you DO NOT WANT VAT!

You are fools to even consider it. You are idiots if you allow it to pass. You should hang your political class from lamp posts and burn their homes if they force this upon you.

My God, what is going on in the USA?
Posted by: Lagom   2009-05-27 17:57  

#19  There is an upside to not retiring. KiloBravo and I won't have to buy those lawn chairs we were going use to watch the geese and ducks at the park.

We've got that going for us.

Blondie, get a job in the patio furniture department at Walmart. You'll have a lot of people to talk to about lawn chairs.

Note to myself: Buy lawn chair futures.

Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-05-27 16:44  

#18  Either way, the idiot VAT tax or monitization is a tax increase on 100% of Americans. Make that known far and wide. I want John Linders Peoples Resplution Fair Tax to replace the current system. We still have not addresed the AMT.

The only solice will be if the Country gets a reduced credit rating or Washington DC becomes gone over night.

This whole thing will be a disaster as no matter what move they make, it will be the opposite direction of really needs to be done.
Posted by: newc   2009-05-27 16:43  

#17  I make things for a living. I sold a bunch of things today. The buyer paid me CASH. I gave her a small discount since this sale will never show up on any books, and will not be taxed.

Y'all need to get used to working off the books as much as possible. Starve the bastards.

BTW, VATs are usually levied on sales up and down the wholesale side of things. They are not just a retail tax, someone pays a tax everytime something gets sold, including raw materials on their way to becoming a finished product, which is then taxed again at retail.



Posted by: Parabellum   2009-05-27 16:21  

#16  Didn't Huckabee have a plan just like this?

Huckabee's was The FairTax not a VAT.
Posted by: Beavis   2009-05-27 16:08  

#15  Didn't Huckabee have a plan just like this?
Only it was a fools pursuit when a Republican thought of it.

I think it would be a good system if they eliminated the income tax and went solely with the VAT. Every person in the country would be bound to pay their fair share.
But you notice their isn't a single word in there about doing away with the income tax.
Posted by: bigjim-ca   2009-05-27 16:00  

#14  Barbara and GB, you don't understand. Making you work until you die is a feature, not a bug. There is honor and nobility in slaving working until the end so you can support the masses, fellow oppressors!

(Yeah, I gots a 201k, myself....I sure hope that Walmart greeter smock doesn't make my butt look fat....)
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-05-27 15:51  

#13  Barbara:

I your case it will become a 151K. My current 313K will become a 235K.

I'll be working the rest of my life with you to pay for this Obamadness.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-05-27 15:43  

#12  "401Ks will become 301Ks overnight."

Hell, GB, mines already become a 201K.

I'm planning on working until I die....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-05-27 15:33  

#11  NO! NO! NO!
Posted by: 3dc   2009-05-27 15:22  

#10  FYI, Australia introduced this (called GST here) 10 years ago.

2 things of note.

All revenues go to the states.

States were supposed to remove existing taxes to make it revenue neutral, which of course they didn't.

As taxes go, its a good tax. Easy and cheap to administer. My return took me about 5 minutes to do.

In the US it sounds like a federal government tax grab.
Posted by: Phil_B   2009-05-27 15:17  

#9  Retirees will see their fixed income from savings reduced by 25% so they can provide Universal Helthcare to Illegal Aliens and other people that cannot or choose not to have Healthcare coverage. 401Ks will become 301Ks overnight.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-05-27 15:06  

#8  a couple of things will happen if this is implemented:
There will be a spike in large purchases (houses, cars...) as people race to avoid the penality.
The politicians will tell you the spike in economic activity validates their great decision.
The economy will then drop tremendously as prices of goods and sevices adjust to reality (will houses really cost 25% more? probably not because buyers will be hit with a tax induced inflation and prices will need to come down to match market forces).
Politicians will then say they need to borrow, spend and tax more to get the 'new' economy moving again.

Rinse and repeat.
Posted by: airandee   2009-05-27 14:51  

#7  Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries.

Yeah? These folks in Manila don't seem so crazy about it...

Posted by: tu3031   2009-05-27 14:40  

#6  This administration is intentionally trying to impoverish the nation.
Posted by: Iblis   2009-05-27 14:26  

#5  "Hey! I gots it! Let's tell the rubes that it will pay for healthcare! If they buy the idear that our deficits are because we don't have universal health care, they'll buy this idear, too!"
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-05-27 14:20  

#4  Lets see. VAT plus "Cap and Tax" plus Income Tax plus "State and Local". Yup, that should leave enough to eat on if you don't need a roof overhead.
Posted by: tipover   2009-05-27 13:48  

#3  If the present crop of congressional beauzeaux really want to get unelected quick, they should go ahead and try this.

Here's a novel idea: QUIT SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Idiots.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-05-27 13:31  

#2  So much for "95% of Americans won't see their taxes increase!" You don't get much more regressive than sales taxes, let alone punitive 10% rates. They'd subject us all to Chicago municipal sales tax rates if they can.

What the fuckers don't mention is that conservative would-be reformers want to replace the income and corporate income taxes with VATs, or income taxes with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The fuckers-that-be *never* think that way. It's always *in addition to* the existing tax structure.

What these "the rest of the world pays VAT" assholes *don't* tell you is that they pay VAT instead of heavy taxes on corporations, which is the American model. The European corporation extracts heavy VAT rates from their customers in exchange for not paying heavy direct taxes on their net revenue, the way that American corporations do, in theory.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-05-27 13:31  

#1  People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. Shoot yourself in the head, then.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-05-27 13:27  

00:00