The FairTax is Not Regressive
By James M Bennett on 02/17/2013 in Congress, consumption-based tax, FairTax, tax reform, US House with 22 CommentsRead Time: 4 - 7 minutes
FairTax critics reflexively attack the FairTax as regressive. Such castigation is fitting for most sales taxes, but the FairTax is not regressive. Here’s why:
The FairTax is a bill in Congress calling for a national retail sales tax to replace Subtitles A, B and C of the Internal Revenue Code and phase out the IRS. The taxes that disappear under those subtitles are corporate and individual income taxes, payroll and employment taxes, estate, and gift and generation-skipping taxes. Conventional thinking is that sales taxes are regressive — i.e. unfair to the poor and middle class — and perhaps for good reason.
The argument is that sales taxes do not consider the ability of the taxpayer to pay. States that have retail sales taxes typically mitigate that problem by exempting supermarket food (not restaurant food), ordinary clothing (not minks), rent, and medicine. Such items are non-discretionary.The FairTax offers no such exemptions. All new tangible goods and services, sold at retail, are subject to the tax. The absence of exemptions enables the FairTax to capture much of the shadow and illegal economy, but still, why is this tax fair? Tweet this article: Tweet
The first part of the answer lies in the nature of the taxes that are being eliminated. The federal payroll tax is one of the culprits. This tax is levied today on wages up to $113,700.00. A hamburger flipper at Wendy’s earning minimum wage pays the same rate on his or her wages as the better-paid executive.
Wages above $113,700.00 are not taxed at all (neither are benefits paid in retirement on those wages). Also, the tax is limited to wages, and it is not levied on investment income.
The other regressive tax that is eliminated by the FairTax is less evident. This tax is the set of indirect taxes that consumers pay when producers and providers pass them on in the form of higher prices. These taxes include business income taxes and employer payroll taxes, together with compliance costs. These taxes raise the price of food, clothing, rent, and medicine.
It is difficult to estimate the impact of these hidden taxes and compliance costs on retail prices. The response of markets depends on the degree of competition in any given field and on elasticity of demand; economist Dr. Karen Walby suggests a figure of 12.5 percent. With any modicum of competition, pre-tax prices under the FairTax should fall by that amount.
Assuming the Federal Reserve does nothing to accommodate the FairTax with changes in the money supply, a pre-tax price drop of 12.5 percent would represent a post-tax price rise — once only — of 14 percent, using a static model based on a nominal tax-inclusive rate of 23 percent. Most working people would gain 12 percent in purchasing power.
Retired seniors living on Social Security are not forgotten. Social Security benefits rise, under the bill, to accommodate any rise in the cost of living due to the FairTax.
Not only does the legislation eliminate regressive taxes and built-in costs, and protect seniors, the FairTax is fair for another reason.
The legislation provides for a prepayment in advance (the Family Consumption Allowance), to all citizens and lawful residents. It is based strictly on household size and on cost-of-living estimates from the Health and Human Services. The marriage penalty is removed. The purpose of this prepayment is to cancel out the tax on consumption of essentials.
This prepayment, on its face, makes the FairTax progressive. Simple arithmetic indicates that a household of four that consumes $32,260 effectively pays 0 percent tax; a household that consumes $60,520 effectively pays 11.8 percent tax; and a household that consumes $242,080 effectively pays 20.2 percent tax. As household consumption rises, the effective rate approaches the nominal tax-inclusive rate of 23 percent.
The prepayment rewards people for improving themselves because everyone gets it. Today’s Earned Income Credit, by contrast, is different. Economist Dr. Laurence J. Kotlikoff writes extensively about “welfare loss” today as a cost of choosing work over leisure. The FairTax differs by rewarding work.
The prepayment is another reason why the tax is made fair to seniors. Seniors are less able to adapt to changes. A senior couple living exclusively from Social Security will clearly see its purchasing power rise from the prepayment because there is no marriage penalty. Because of the prepayment, seniors with additional income would need to spend $60,000 – $80,000/year before they would notice any difference under the FairTax. Then, they would see an offsetting drop in income taxes.
In addition to repealing regressive and hidden taxes, offering a prepayment, and protecting seniors, the FairTax is fair for a more philosophical reason. Wealthy people, it is true, are able to save more and avoid tax on savings. However, savings and investment represent deferral of present gratification to the saver, and a benefit to society. The FairTax, unlike the income tax, is a wealth tax. Tax is collected when wealth is consumed at retail and economic gratification is no longer deferred. Tweet quote: Tweet
Economist Dr. David Tuerck, expressing his results using Gini coefficients, determined that the FairTax is actually more progressive than all other federal taxes except for gift and inheritance taxes. The poor and middle class benefit disproportionately.
Indeed when it comes to the FairTax, the label “regressive” does not fit. The label “fair” does.





Leave Your Comment →
22 Comments
John Burchill
02.17.2013
Great article Jim. Thnaks for your effort and support of The FairTax.
Daniel Dyer
02.17.2013
James, This is the best explanation in years that the FairTax is actually progressive. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Gbm7uij4E for 63 other reasons for the FairTax.
Ollie Johnson
02.17.2013
Jim,
A great explanation! Thanks.
Hank Van Gieson
02.17.2013
@linda_little
Jim, Nice article, but as a retiree, please explain why I should support the Fairtax when ir (1) forces me to resume paying for my SS benefits with my sales tax dollars; (2) double taxes my hard earned after tax savings which I depend on for my quality of life; and (3) shifts a significant federal tax burden onto me and all missle class retirees. Thanks!
PS, where is my $10.00
Robert Williams
02.17.2013
Linda Little (AKA HANK VAN GIESON) Why do you continue to play by your “wife’s” name? Surely an MIT Graduate can figure out how to log into a site using his real name. I’m beinging to think your actions are purely intentional and possibly even malicious.
To answer your questions (not for you, but for others here):
(1) Because you will continue to use the system. As long as you continue to use the system, why should you not continue to pay into it. Additionally, what you will pay into the system (with your tax dollars) is a minute portion of what you paid into while you were working. Under the FairTax, there will be approximately 150MILLION more people paying into the system than are currently doing so under our Income Tax system. Therefore, the portion you pay towards SS/MC are infinitely smaller.
(2) Ask any senior who is working now and they will tell you they are still getting taxed. Their current work is being taxed, their SS benefits are being taxed, and they are being taxed at the register (hidden taxes). The FairTax eliminates all that, and more. Let’s not forget how the FairTax eliminates the estate and gift taxes, reducing the planning of their estate and eliminating the burden of paying those taxes that is unnecisarily placed on the family.
(3) The federal tax burden being placed on “missle class retirees” (sic) is a myth perpetrated by an uneducated politician who did very little research on the FairTax.
“Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system.” -Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and David Rapson, “Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation,” NBER Working Paper No. 12533, revised October 2006.
“Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively.” -Jokisch, Sabine and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, “Simulating the Dynamic Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax,” National Tax Journal, June 2007.
“Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax.” -Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Paul Bachman, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and Phuong Viet Ngo, “A Distributional Analysis of Adopting the FairTax: A Comparison of the Current Tax System and the FairTax Plan,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007.
Hank Van Gieson
02.18.2013
@linda_little
Robert, what on earth are you smoking? Your responses indicate a total lack of independant research. If you had not banned me from your own site, both of us might have been a lot smarter.
(1) Nonsense. Under current law, I paid into the Trust Funds for over 45 years, and was expecting a retirement and health care benefit with no further payments. The Fairtax requires me to resume paying approximately 1/3rd of my sales tax dollars into the Trust Funds. That is not a “minute amount!! Is that fair? How about you giving me a Fairtax card that makes my sales tax rate 15% and keeps faith with prior promises?
(2) I can forget gift and estate taxes because they impact only the wealthy, which I’m not.
(3) The increased federal tax burden on middle class retirees is certainly no myth. As an AARP volunteer tax preparer with access to the IRS software, and as an expert on the Fairtax, I can assure you that all middle class retirees would be hurt by the Fairtax. One quick example. At $50,000 gross income from SS and investments, federal income tax would be $1,000 for a retired couple. Under the Fairtax, even after reducing that $50,000 by 25% to account for non taxable spending, and accounting for the $5,000 prebate, the net federal sales tax would be $3625, an increase of $2625 over current law. The same result holds true for gross incomes up to $100,000. Check iot out! Mitt Romney was half right!
Robert Williams
02.18.2013
If you say so, Hank, well then it MUST be true. NOT! I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t trust anyone who works as a “volunteer tax preparer” for AARP. AARP lost credibility years ago and is dong nothing more than riding on the backs of hard working Seniors. They don’t care about you, Hank. Or should I say “You don’t care about them”?!
AARP is THE largest lobbying firm in DC, and spent $175,032,064 from 2005-2012 on Corrupt Politicians. THAT is the reason you’re fighting the FairTax so much, isn’t it Hank? You’re being paid to derail the FairTax because the AARP knows what they stand to lose once the FairTax is enacted.
Finally, we have reached the truth.
Hank Van Gieson
02.18.2013
@linda_little
Robert,
As usual, you missed the point of my reference to AARP. I was simply stating that I used the latest IRS tax software to determine the tax burden in my example. And, if you object to my Fairtax calculation, tell me why if you can.
I have no idea what AARP stands to lose should the Fairtax scheme ever get implemented, but I certainly know that at age 80, I’m not being paid by anyone to do anything. Your version of the truth really is stranger than fiction. You need to change your brand of scotch, sailor.
James M Bennett
02.18.2013
Linda/Hank,
Let’s address the REAL fairness question about seniors who complain they paid in to Social Security and are now again going to pay tax under the FairTax. You haven’t paid enough yet. Social Security is under-funded to the tune of $6 Trillion. Economist Laurence Kotlikoff has, on at least two occasions, described the problem as inter-generational child abuse. This “child abuse” will affect most of the readers of this blog.
And the effects of the abuse are starting already. Recently the AARP observed that most seniors retiring in 2011 or later have become the first class of seniors who will receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system. That’s a pretty poor ROI. I use the term “ROI” advisedly because there really is no investment. Social Security was never set up actuarially the way a private annuity company has to be. Instead Social Security has always been a scheme to take from current workers to give to current retirees.
But lest we bewail today’s seniors under the FairTax, seniors will make out just fine. First, Social Security, as you point out, is taxable already – up to 80% of the benefit – starting at $32,000 if the recipient has too much other income. The lifetime contributions were already taxed, so the senior is effectively paying tax twice on the “same income” – just as you claim the senior is doing under the FairTax. Under the FairTax a senior couple is clearly ahead of the game up to $45,000 of consumption due to the prepayment and Social Security indexing (at 12%, not 14%). It probably takes an additional $25,000 of TAXABLE spending before the burdens are equal.
Then not all spending is taxable under the FairTax. Examples are used goods, charitable contributions, education (yes some seniors go back to school), loan repayments, savings deposits, and taxes. Thus, seniors under the FairTax can consume up to $80,000 before they see a difference. Remember then that seniors today who consume based on income have to pay income tax just as does everyone else. Most seniors have made their major purchases by the time they retire.
The argument that seniors are hurt under the FairTax is specious.
——————————
PS: You owe me the $10!
James M Bennett
02.18.2013
PS: Over time old guys like us drop out of the system and stop complaining!
Hank Van Gieson
02.18.2013
@linda_little
Jim,
I happen to think you want to be an honest Fairtax broker, but your statement that “the argument that seniors are hurt under the Fairtax is specious” is dead wrong. Your claim that a senior couple is clearly ahead of the game up to $45,000 of consumption is also dead wrong. I provided Robert with an example at $50,000 gross, $37,500 spendable which showed the federal tax burden to be over $2600 greater under the Fairtax. I don’t have a $45,000 example, but let’s look at $40,000. Under current tax law, a retired couple, both over 65, claiming the standard deduction and two exemptions with income of two average SS checks of $12,000 each plus $16,000 in savings/investment income pay no income tax. To repeat, that is zero income tax! Even if the couple gets only one average SS check plus $28,000 in investment/savings income, their federal income tax is $670.
Under the Fairtax, with $40,000 gross and assuming 1/4th is non taxable consumption, then their total federal sales tax burden would be $1900 after accounting for the Family Consumption Allowance. This pattern holds true for gross incomes up to $100,000. If Romney had claimed that consumption taxes hurt the RETIRED middle class, he would have been correct.
You managed to mix up relative tax burdens with prices in your response. I agree that retail prices won’t hurt retirees due to the indexing of government provided income. I am concerned as I have told you in prior posts that the correction will lag price increases by a year or so, discounting the short term inventory tax credits. No big deal.
As for Social Security, your claim that “I haven’t paid enough yet” is nonsense. In todays dollars, you have no idea what I paid in or received. Other than the fact I’m 80 and have probably lived far longer than FDR ever envisioned, I paid my share and object to any plan that has me paying for the rest of my life which is what the Fairtax does. Major breach of contract by the government no matter if the SS plan needs adjusting or not. And AARP’s claim is also nonsense. Social Security is not bankrupt no matter what the left leaning media claim, and the plan can be fixed by some fairly minor corrections. Bill Bradley suggested that changing the retirement age gradually, removing the cap on earnings, changing the way COLA’s are calculated, and bringing State/Local government workers into the plan would fix things for another 75 years. Other than the part about S/L workers (which would be unconstitutional) I expect we will see these changes implemented fairly soon.
Get out your 1040 and your calculator and check it out. The Fairtax increases middle class retirees federal tax burden significantly. The Fairtax isn’t fair!!
PS, the House only had 70 cosponsors in the 112th, and that did not beat the 110th record of 72. That was our bet, not total House/Senate combined cosponsors as I remember it.
James M Bennett
02.18.2013
You are under-stating the effect of non-taxable spending and indexing. What is your basis for thinking there will be a lag in indexing Social Security benefits?
And I stand by my larger point that you benefited from government spending far more than the readers of this blog will. Inflation or no – you will receive more in Social Security Benefits in your lifetime than you paid in – and the folks who read this blog will not. I say that in full recognition of your military service.
Bill Bradley is entitled to his opinion on how to fix the system, but he spoke years ago, and we did nothing about it. Meanwhile the so-called Trust Fund has just about dried up, and baby-boomers are starting to claim benefits. The Social Security Trustees themselves say the system is under-funded, and the problem can only have grown worse since Bradley left the Senate. We need to fix Social Security now, not after you’re gone, and the FairTax switches the funding base for Social Security to one that is twice as large and 31% more stable – and growing..
Hank Van Gieson
02.18.2013
@linda_little
Jim,
You claim I understated the effect of non taxable spending. I don’t agree. Our budget for 2013 contains 16% in non taxable spending, mostly taxes and charity. I used 25% in my example and would like to know if you have any data to support your claim. As I have said repeatedly, there are no non taxable services which make up roughly half of a familym budget, no non taxable food, restaurant meals rental housing, heating oil, gas for the family auto, etc. etc. and nothing non taxable at Wal-Mart. If you don’t like 25%, non taxable, what would you suggest and why?
As for indexing, prices have to rise before a correction wouold be made to benefits. Therefore, I think a one year lag is reasonable. Surely you don’t expect the SSA to be adjusting COLA’s on a monthly or daily basis?
The Fairtax will destroy the current Social Security concept, and that may not be a bad thing. But your fellow Fairtax advocates need to stop claiming that the only effect on SS would be changing the source of the revenue. Not true, and I’d be happy to provide details if you wish.
By the way, what does my military service have to do with any of this? Are you implying that I didn’t pay FICA while in the service. That certainly isn’t true.
James M Bennett
02.18.2013
I see you have not responded to my major theme of inter-generational child abuse.
Hank Van Gieson
02.19.2013
@linda_little
Intergenerational child abuse is a high sounding phrase, but what is the point? If we are abusing our grandchildren, I suggest it is only because of the $16+trillion national debt we have loaded on our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Social Security is certainly not the culprit. And there is no data to show I got more from SS than I paid in. Nor is there any chance that younger generations will not receive the benefits promised. Too many skeptics seem to believe that SS is bankrupt–out of money. Nonsense! When the Trust Fund balance of $2.5 trillion is gone, the worst thing that could happen if no changes are made, the Fund would only be able to pay 80% of benefits. And that isn’t going to happen. I don’t care how long Bradley has been retired, the fixes are the same and just as necessary today as during his time. And the Fairtax scheme doesn’t fix the problem, it completely replaces the current SS concept. If you could wave Huckabee’s magic wand and transform SS overnight, it might work, but there are no magic wands. Get off the subject of SS fixes and focus on tax reform. Isn’t it time your FAST group told Congressman Woodall that HR25 is going nowhere, and a different approach might be more productive? I have frequently proposed a plan I call Fairtax-Lite. I’ll repeat it here for your consideration.
“Fairtax-Lite is a broad based, revenue neutral, national consumption tax which replaces just the income tax in two phases and has no exclusions. The plan (1) does not tax government consumption, other than that of Government Enterprises (2) leaves payroll contributions and gift/estate taxes in place, (3) no inventory tax credits, and (4) uses a targeted prebate costing an estimated $59 billion annually. The prebate would be provided to any family with income at or less than the official HHS poverty level figures.
-Phase 1 would levy a 2.5% national consumption tax on the retail sale of durable and non durable goods as well as all services. The revenue would be used to eliminate federal corporate taxes. In return, efforts would be made with the “big boxes” to encourage a retail price decrease of an average of 10%, the estimated cost savings from eliminating all Corporate tax related costs. Phase 1 will require at least one year of implementation in order to determine if the collection process is working appropriately.
-Phase 2 would implement a 14.5% national consumption tax on the base described above, and would eliminate all individual income taxes as well as the corporate tax costs. Phase 2 would be implemented in the second year unless more time is required to stabilize the Phase 1 part of the plan.”
Jim, it is time to get on the list of tax reform proposals that may be considered by the House W&M committee this spring. (maybe?) HR25 isn’t on their radar screen, and rightly so. Let’s simplify and make a real contribution!
James M Bennett
02.21.2013
@jbennettatty
I am reminded of union negotiators who can be counted on to say it’s never them; it’s the other guy (usually management and their bad decisions). Yes, there is clearly inter-generational child abuse. According to US Debt Clock.com:
US National Debt is $16.562 Trillion
Social Security Unfunded Liability is $15.109 Trillion
Medicare Unfunded Liability is $79.022 Trillion
Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability is $19,943 Trillion
National Healthcare Unfunded Liability is $9.202 Trillion.
Total Unfunded Liability is $123.276 Trillion
Total National On-The-Books Debt Plus Unfunded Liability is $139.838 Trillion.
Most of the unfunded liability identified above benefits seniors. If we are to be candid about fairness, we cannot be inter-generational-child-abuse deniers. We, including my generation, are all part of the problem. My father enjoyed riling his contemporaries back in the ’60′s who complained about welfare. My father pointed out that, as Social Security recipients, they were the biggest welfare beneficiaries by far.
My father also quoted often the legal maxim that hard cases make bad law. When the state legislates to a unique hardship, society as a whole suffers.
Bringing this back to the FairTax, if indeed seniors are slightly disadvantaged (which might be true in individual cases but not generally), it is not unfair. Today’s seniors have been the beneficiaries of government spending and of policies that created the unfunded liability. If the FairTax helps to change the devil-may-care culture by making government spending more evident, it is worth it.
James M Bennett
02.21.2013
@jbennettatty
I also picked up on the argument that, when it comes to reducing future benefits by 20-25%, that’s inconsequential, but when it comes to reducing current benefits, that’s unfair.
Hank Van Gieson
02.21.2013
@linda_little
Jim,
Help me out here. Isn’t it true that when you talk about unfunded liabilities, you mean that the cash isn’t already in the Trust Fund? And, properly funded, those unfunded liabilities will be paid for in the future. Or are you saying that even with the trillions rolling in each year from payroll taxes, there is still the “unfunded liability” in say the SS Trust Fund that is shown on the Debt Clock?
Jim Bennett
02.22.2013
Life insurance companies who offer annuity products have to have sufficient reserves to fund the contractual obligations they have taken on. Companies can take future revenues into account and discount those liabilities back to present value. If they don’t fund their contractual obligations, their executives go to jail – as they jolly well should, and insurance departments shut the companies down.
The problem is that the Social Security and Medicare programs, among others, are not held to the same standards as private life insurance companies. Uncle Sam does not have enough assets on hand today to meet promises he has made for the future. The “assets” he does have on hand are a stack of IOU’s from his general treasury that the general treasury is unable to honor. Uncle Sam has stolen from our children. Unfortunately, members of Congress don’t go to jail for stealing from our children. That is the ultimate and regressive unfairness.
The FairTax at least starts to make a dent in the problem.
William Payne
02.17.2013
Mr. Bennett, you have knocked this one out of the park! Kudos!
John B Egan
02.18.2013
I recall the same arguments used in Britain when Britain instituted the Value Added Tax in place of income taxes…. Boy were we in for a surprise. Remarkably, it didn;t work the way it was supposed to (there’s a surprise) and did affect the lower incomes to a greater degree than the economists had expected. We had neighbors that had to decide between buying food or paying for heat.. This idea is similar to the one suggested by Steve Forbes and make my hacles rise.
James M Bennett
02.18.2013
I was not aware that the UK abolished its income tax. My quick research indicates that the UK has had an income tax since 1798. Is this new?