Substance Matters

Despite much debate in Washington, the hundreds of gallons of ink spilled and pounds of paper consumed – not to mention the billions of 1s and 0s expended in cyberspace – nowhere does the Obama administration’s Green Book or other tax-legislative proposals provide for a national sales tax. The focus is entirely on increasing the federal wage tax base.

Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, told the Washington Post in May that “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.”

It would seem that at some point in the not-too-distant future employees will be faced with an increasing burden on their wages with little hope of receiving the benefit such taxes promise. Social Security is on shaky ground at best. With some form of nationalized healthcare in the offing (increasing the burden on employees and their employers) Congress should be considering a national sales tax or consumption-based tax.

NOTE: We could devote an entire series of blogs to the differences between and benefits and drawbacks of a true sales tax verses a value-added (or goods and services) tax. We’re not going to do that. Mostly because it would be pretty dull for all but the most hardcore tax wonks. Suffice it to say that if you really, desperately want to read more about it. Go here, here or here.

Consider that the U.S. is the only OECD member state that does not have some form of nationalized healthcare or a consumption tax at the federal level. Other OECD member states that have enacted nationalized healthcare have resorted to consumption-based tax systems to pay for those benefits.

Such systems are tax-neutral for businesses for the most part and are borne by the consumer. They also have the added benefit of allowing exemptions and /or reduced rates of taxation for certain classes of products, e.g., ethical pharmaceuticals, children’s clothing, etc., thereby constraining the regressive nature of the tax with regard to social causes. Individual states in the U.S. have managed to provide a sales-tax base that is fair for the most part. Why not at the federal level too?

From the perspective of preserving the dwindling corporate tax base, a consumption tax should allow the U.S. to reduce the corporate tax rate – currently the second highest amongst the OECD member states.

U.S.-based multinational enterprises are increasingly moving their operations out of the U.S. to lower-tax jurisdictions. High corporate tax rates affect Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) into the U.S.; which provides jobs and other opportunities for American workers.

Examples abound. Currently the Japanese have the world’s highest corporate tax rate and have suffered economically for almost two decades. By contrast, Ireland suffered significant unemployment and declining FDI in the early ‘80s. By reducing the corporate tax rate (now at 12.5%), the country generated a significant increase in FDI leading to historic employment levels and economic growth. Closer to home, Canadian corporate taxes have been steadily reduced and are expected to be around 25% in 2012. The Canadian economy has grown.

It’s time for the US Congress to bring U.S. tax law into the 21^st century. Apparently it is more politically expedient to tax the working class with an outmoded payroll tax without any regard to the longer-term implications of having the second highest corporate tax burden in the OECD.

Tags: Congress, healthcare debate, IRS, OECD, sales tax, tax, Tax legislation, VAT

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am and is filed under Congress, OECD. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.