Consumption taxes and liberals
2/14/2003 12:00:00 AM - Bruce Bartlett
The Bush administration supports a fundamental tax reform that
would move the federal tax system away from taxing income toward taxing
consumption. This is a highly desirable goal, because it will raise growth
and living standards for most Americans. Nevertheless, liberals are opposing
it because it would benefit the rich too much.
Traditionally, consumption taxation has meant taxing goods
directly, with services generally exempted. Such taxes are common at the
state and local level, where we are accustomed to paying as much as 10
percent at the checkout. According to the Federation of Tax Administrators,
45 states currently have general sales taxes, varying between 2.9 percent in
Colorado and 7 percent in Mississippi and Rhode Island. Local sales taxes
can raise the total tax as high as 9.75 percent (in Oklahoma), with excise
taxes on some specific goods on top. The Federal Government also has many
excise taxes as well, especially on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco.
Consumption taxes are less burdensome than income taxes because
of the way they treat saving. Under an income tax, all returns to saving and
investment -- interest, dividends, rent and capital gains -- are fully
taxed. Under a consumption tax, they would be exempt. Consequently, saving
and investment are much higher with a consumption tax than an income tax.
That is why European countries, which all have tax burdens much higher than
ours but also raise more of their revenue by taxing consumption, are still
able to grow.
If it were just a matter of economics, there would be no contest
between taxing income or consumption. Unfortunately, ideology and politics
have prevented reductions in taxes on saving and investment that would move
the United States toward a consumption-based tax system.
Keep in mind that it is not necessary to tax consumption
directly, through sales or excise taxes, to have a consumption tax system.
Since there are only two things that can be done with income -- either save
it or spend it -- eliminating taxes on saving necessarily shifts the tax
burden onto consumption. If there were no taxes at all on saving, we would
per se have a consumption tax system, even if there were no direct taxes on
Unfortunately, it is the case that most saving and investment
are done by the wealthy. How could it be otherwise? Therefore, reducing
taxes on saving necessarily involves a reduction in taxes on the well to do.
Consequently, liberals strenuously fight efforts to lower taxes on saving
even though the ultimate beneficiaries would be the working class. Higher
saving and capital formation will lead to more investment, which will raise
productivity and, ultimately, wages and living standards.
Liberals also make the mistake of assuming that a
consumption-based tax system is regressive -- taking more out of the pockets
of the poor than the rich. In fact, over one's lifetime, consumption is
roughly proportional to income, because over a lifetime we eventually
consume all our income. Thus, a tax on consumption will also be roughly
proportional -- taking the same percentage from all taxpayers.
Furthermore, liberals make the mistake of assuming that those
who are poor today will always be poor and those who are rich will always be
rich. This is really their principal justification for income and wealth
redistribution policies. However, new data reported in the latest Economic
Report of the President show that there is substantial mobility up and down
the income ladder.
The Council of Economic Advisers looked at what rate taxpayers
faced in 1987 and again in 1996. Two-thirds of those in the lowest tax
bracket the first year were in a higher bracket 10 years later, and more
than half of those in the top tax bracket were in a lower bracket. In other
words, the bulk of those who would be considered poor in the first instance
were much better off a decade later -- a few even became rich, going all the
way from the bottom tax bracket to the top bracket. Simultaneously, most of
those who would be considered rich weren't after a few years -- 5 percent
fell all the way from the top tax bracket to the bottom bracket.
The high degree of income mobility in American society is a key
reason why many of the poor and middle class oppose high taxes on the
rich -- 70 percent of Americans favor abolishing the estate tax, for
example, even though it affects just 2 percent of the population.
Implicitly, they know that they or their children might one day be rich and
have to pay this tax. They also know that poor people don't create jobs;
rich people do.
Adopting a consumption-based tax system will help more Americans
become rich. That is another reason why liberals oppose it.