F U G O P

A Reality-Based Blog.

Atom Feed

Friends

Good Blogs

Not So Good Blogs

News Sources

Profile

 

4/01/2005

National Sales Tax: Flat Out Bad Idea

I’m annoyed but not surprised at the way George Will writes about Rep. John Linder’s bill to enact a national consumption tax, and do away with the IRS and K Street along with it. Of course, he attempts to appear neutral while giving a very one-sided description of a consumption tax. And of course, there is much more to the story.

A consumption tax is simply a tax on everything you buy. Also called a national sales tax or national retail sales tax, it entails taxing all consumption at a flat rate. Rep. Linder’s proposed rate is 23 percent (which works out to a 30 percent tax). Like in Rep. Linder’s bill, most proposals for a consumption tax involve doing away with the collection of other taxes such as those on income, payroll, capital gains, dividends, etc. This means that the wealthy citizens who can afford a high sales tax keep a lot more of their wealth and would likely spend a very low percentage of what they earn in sales taxes. Low-income earners who usually spend a much higher percentage of their earnings on consumption would be hit very hard by the tax. This makes a consumption tax very regressive, even with the "rebate for the poor" that Will mentions. Families with children would be particularly burdened as they generally buy more than those without children and would not benefit from any of the numerous family-friendly deductions in the current income tax system.

In his overview of a National Retail Sales Tax (NRST), William Gale of the Brookings Institution explains that in order for a consumption tax to replace current federal tax revenue, the flat rate would have to be much higher than most proposals advocate (like well over 50 percent). And the higher the tax rate, the more chance there would be for tax evasion, cheating, and so on. As Matt Yglesias points out, the evidence suggests that it is unrealistic to actually enforce a sales tax over 10 percent.

As with any tax reform proposal, there is a lot more to it than mentioned here. But just knowing the basics on this tax is enough to convince me it is a ludicrous idea. It is kind of scary that people are actually still talking about it.

3/30/2005

Social Security's Safety Net for Women

Dr. Bitch has a great post about how women’s choices early in their careers have major long-term effects – on everything from the ability to compete in the job market and earn a competitive salary, to the size of their retirement plans and Social Security checks. She raises a host of extremely important issues.

Taking even just a year out of the workforce to have a child sets women back in terms of competitiveness in the job market as well as long-term financial security. Not to mention that women are also more likely than men to take time off to care for elderly parents or relatives. I’m just hoping that the degrees I get as a result of the years I’m taking off to go back to graduate school will make up for the time it means I’m spending outside of the workforce while my peers, men and women alike, earn human capital in the workforce and contribute to their 401K’s and retirement funds. Dr. B is lucky she’s had Mr. B to support her through her education and contribute to their future together. I hope things continue to work out for them. Our system admittedly works best for people who get married; it’s hard to ignore the explicit pressure and financial benefits for doing so in our society.

But what about women who might want to get an advanced degree and have children, all without (god help them) wanting to get married? I can almost hear my father scoffing at the irresponsibility of such a scenario were I to consider it. It is unlikely that a woman making such choices could hope to live as comfortably in retirement (or before) as a man who chooses to obtain the same degree, have a family and work.

Clearly, these are pie-in-the-sky problems so to speak, as many women would love the financial opportunity to obtain an advanced degree and make the choice whether or not to have children afterward. Lots of low-income women don’t have the luxury of even considering quiting their jobs to go back to school, whether they already have children or not. There are many scenarios out there and a host of problems facing women who want to (or have to) work, and of course it isn't the case that all men have it made, either. But if we want women to be able to pursue careers while having families, and have equitable opportunities for economic security and retirement, then society has to adapt. Of course, many changes have been made in the workplace to address these issues, but many more are needed.

One thing is clear to me when thinking about the social and economic issues facing women today -- women still need and depend on the safety net that Social Security provides. The monthly Social Security checks are so critical for women whose retirement and other savings accounts are lower as a result of life choices they make. Due to the way the system currently works, there is inherently more financial risk for women who choose to have children. Even if they do so in the security of a marriage, women take a gamble that the marriage will last or that if it doesn’t they won’t shoulder the financial burden. It seems to me with so many other risks involved in the economic choices women make, the last place we want to add more risk is in the safety net that so many of them rely on at the end of their lives.

 

Recent Posts

There Is No Crisis: Protecting the Integrity of Social Security

Articles

Archives

Powered by BloggerWeblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com