Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Your Nightmare
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html

Uncle Sam already taxes themselves and the states by taxing their employees wages and salaries....


A Note on the Sales Tax and Government Output

Under the sales tax system outlined in this study, government output would not be exempted from the sales tax. Hence, government output is included in the tax base. Since this is an issue of some controversy, the following is a brief explanation of the logic for this tax treatment. [35]

Our goal is to create a sales tax system where the government can provide the same amount of output at the same real cost as it does under the current income tax structure. We want to ensure that the relative prices of a government service versus a privately provided service are unaltered after the tax shift. In sum, the government should be held harmless by the switch to the national sales tax.

The Gross Domestic Product includes both government value added and private value added. Government value added is included at "cost," which is approximately equal to the wages paid to its employees. Under the income tax, output is taxed whether the source is government or the private sector. The government pays its employees a gross amount and then deducts the income tax from their paychecks. IN OTHER WORDS, BY IMPOSING AN INCOME TAX ON THE WAGES AND SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS, UNCLE SAM ESSENTIALLY COLLECTS A TAX FROM ITSELF. It could, of course, just pay them a lower tax-free wage, but we choose not to do that and have higher spending (from paying pre-tax wages) and higher tax revenue (from the income tax on wages paid by the government). If government did not impose a tax on the wages of government workers, then we would not want to do so under the sales tax regime, or else those workers would be adversely affected.

Subtraction method value added taxes or VATs (sometimes referred to as "business transfer taxes" or BTTs) do not typically tax government value added. By contrast, the Hall-Rabushka flat tax introduced by Rep. Armey (R-Tex.) and Sen. Shelby (R-Ala.) does tax the income of government workers. [36] Unlike a normal subtraction method VAT, the flat tax allows a deduction for wages and then taxes wages at the individual level. Its tax base is consequently larger than a normal BTT.

Similarly, under a sales tax system, if government payrolls were not taxed, the tax base would be smaller than it is under the current income tax and under the proposed flat tax. The rate of tax on all other goods and services would thus have to be higher than under the flat tax because of that difference in the tax base.

One way of examining this issue further is to simply take the National Income Product Accounts and start calculating the tax base under the various tax systems. If one goes through that exercise to demonstrate the oft-repeated equivalence of the various consumption tax plans, it becomes clear that the flat tax has a broader base than a sales tax that does not tax government output because the flat tax taxes government wages. Similarly, a pure income tax is broader not only by the amount of unconsumed capital income but also by the amount of government wages. [37]

In the context of a sales tax, then, a payroll tax on government wages simply achieves parity with the income tax and the flat tax. Failure to impose this tax would exempt government value added from tax for the first time and constitute a dramatic incentive to consume through the medium of government. [38] In other words, failure to tax government output would alter relative prices in favor of government output. A sales tax should also be imposed on government purchases from the private sector. [39]





Government Services and Purchases

The question of the proper tax treatment of government services--such as municipal garbage collection, utilities, visits to national parks, and rides on Amtrak--presents special problems. [56] To the fullest extent possible, a national sales tax should provide parity between government services and private services. Excluding commercial activities of the government from the tax base would provide a tax advantage when government is competing with private providers of services. Hence, when the government sells a good or service, such as public transit or publications, the sales tax should be imposed on the sale price. [57]

The complication is that most government goods and services are not sold in the marketplace. They are often given away and in many cases no market price exists for the services in question. Moreover, the recipients or beneficiaries of the services are unclear or unknown. For example, how would we allocate the benefits conferred on the public by national defense, the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Public Radio, or the White House?

Taxing this part of the economy is not as administratively simple under a sales tax as it is under an income tax. Government services are taxed by both the current graduated income tax and the flat tax--through the income tax imposed on government workers' wages and salaries (i.e., most of government value added). One conceivable way to tax government fully and equally under the NST system would be to impose a separate excise tax on government wages. That is the approach we have adopted in this study. [58]
123 posted on 04/25/2004 3:34:32 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: rolling_stone

One conceivable way to tax government fully and equally under the NST system would be to impose a separate excise tax on government wages. That is the approach we have adopted in this study.

I had missed that one in the Cato review.

Wouldn't that be a kicker if government had to pay what is effectively identical to FICA with regard to government employee wages while everyone else doesn't under the NRST.

Just the opposite of today, ROTFLM( | )O

124 posted on 04/25/2004 3:47:44 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

To: rolling_stone
IN OTHER WORDS, BY IMPOSING AN INCOME TAX ON THE WAGES AND SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS, UNCLE SAM ESSENTIALLY COLLECTS A TAX FROM ITSELF.

There is a significant difference. Currently, the cost of FICA taxes on government employees is on budget. The revenue these taxes create is off budget (it's moved into the Social Security Trust Fund and is invested).

With the NRST, both the expenditure and the revenue it creates is on budget. Expenditures will go up the exact amount of the revenue created (actually, a little less revenue after the tax collection fees are removed). It's like me giving myself a loan and counting it as income.

And on taxing state and local government expenditures (which may be unconstitutional), who pays for that (state would have paid ~$360 billion in 2001)? We do. There will be "embedded federal taxes" in our state and local taxes just like there are "embedded taxes" in the products we currently buy. It's a shell game.
127 posted on 04/26/2004 8:16:27 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson