Human vs Computer Conflicts

The two crashes of Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft in the past year seems to be coming down to a problem of a conflict between the pilot and the on board computer system. In response to an unusual nose-up event, both the pilot and the computer change the controls to push the nose down, resulting in a over reaction. Correcting for the first over reaction by both the pilot and the computer results in a second over reaction, more extreme than the first. If the pilot does not recognize the situation and disengage the computer system, the result is loss of control and a pile of debris. The argument that the solution is more training for pilots seems specious.

A couple of years ago I became re-interested in the reasons for the crash of the Air French Airbus Flight 447 in 2009. At the time I wondered if the 'fly-by-wire' systems on the newer larger airliners was the culprit. In reading the final report on the accident, the cockpit voice record had a comment by one of the pilots on the way to their watery grave: "I don't know what it's doing". It occurred to me when reading it that the pilot was not sure whether he was fighting the aircraft or the computer. This is the fundamental problem with computer control of anything. Whether it is aircraft, cars, or anything where the computer is in control with the human also believing that he/she is also in control, a conflict can easily result in the human fighting the computer because of not being sure what the system is doing. This is especially true when the human is used to controlling a normal plane or car but is not sure what the computer is supposed to do.

As a one-time computer systems designer, it seems to me that the solution should always be that the computer system should be monitoring the human's inputs and neither cancel nor exaggerate them. In the case of the Boeing 737 Max 8, if the pilot has properly responded to the situation, the computer should be programmed to minimize any additional input to the problem. Expecting the user to correct for the computer is always an improper design, and avoiding such must be a fundamental consideration as we move to more and more computer aided systems.

Sales Taxes vs Tariffs

With the President pushing tariffs to level the international playing field for American producers, he and his administration should seriously consider a National Sales Tax (NST) as an alternative or at least in concert with targeted tariffs. By getting rid of the Income Tax (IT) and replacing it with a NST, the burden of maintaining the U.S. market is shared by all who participate in it.

Let's first look at the current situation with the cost of the U.S. Government being primarily carried by U.S. citizens under the IT. Even with the new 'tax reform', a dollar earned by a typical citizen is first reduced by 25 cents with federal IT and a nickel for payroll tax. Then in most states, at least another nickel is appropriated by state IT, and a further nickel in state sales tax on the products bought with the 65 cents remaining. Thus the American consumer loses a third of his buying power regardless of where the products originate.

The labor cost for the U.S. producer is the full dollar cited above plus the employer's share of the payroll tax, plus of course any additional overhead for health benefits, etc. If the employee then buys his company's product, he is in effect paying, say, $1.10 (just for the labor costs) for which he netted about 60 cents. His own labor is costing him twice what he received for it.

The additional cost of a tariff on the imports used in making a given product could vary widely, but even for an equivalent product (a TV or an auto) subject to a tariff, the consumer ultimately pays the extra amount with the reduced buying power of his taxed income.

If the income taxes (and payroll taxes) are replaced by a NST of 30% (the rate proposed by the Fair Tax), the consumer will pay $1.30 for the labor share of a domestic product for which he received $1.00, or about 30% more. He will still bear the extra amount of a tariff, but with a net income of the full dollar rather than 60 cents. The tariff will still penalize the foreign producer relative to the domestic producer, but the impact to the U.S. consumer is a third less.

Even without a tariff, a NST taxes the foreign product at the same rate as the domestic product. This not only levels the tax burden between the foreign and domestic producers, but considerably enhances the competitive position of the domestic producer in the foreign markets since there is no taxation on labor for exported products. And, since the product rather than the labor involved in producing it is taxed in the U.S. market, automation and foreign labor (or even undocumented labor) hold no advantage for the domestic producer.

As we see, in many respects the NST achieves the same result as an import tariff, with considerable benefit to domestic production and consumption as well. Since all imports are equally affected, a retaliation in the form of a 'trade war' is unlikely. If, alternately, a penalty is intended for a given country's products, selective tariffs can still be imposed for political reasons.

The use of a National Sales Tax instead of the fatally flawed Income Tax is a no-brainer, but implementation in the short run begs caution based on system engineering considerations. Step functions - a sudden major change in inputs or characteristics in a dynamic system - can produce wild deviations before ultimately settling out to the long term behavior. Thus, although the NST in the long run is to be preferred, ramping it up as the IT is ramped down (say over 5 years) may be necessary. However, in no way must the IT be allowed to exist past the phase-out period. Ultimately the 16th Amendment must be repealed, and ITs forever banished in the U.S.

Tax Reform - Yet Again

Once again, for the umpty-umpth time, Congress is going to come up with 'Tax Reform'. What we are likely to get again is (maybe) a slightly simplified version of the current tax law monstrosity, which will last until the next batch of politicians engage in the next round of vote-buying. The likelihood of meaningful reform, which would require eliminating the Income Tax, is remote.

The Income Tax, a treachery so heinous that it required amending the Constitution (the 16th Amendment) to be legal, should be temporarily eliminated. I say temporarily since the only way to effect even a semi-permanent elimination is a Constitutional Amendment, and as was shown by the 16th Amendment, even that can be undone. In any case, a law temporarily eliminating the Income Tax could be the basis of true Tax Reform. One could further hope that the wisdom of such an improvement would be sufficiently apparent to promptly re-amend the Constitution to eliminate the possibility of it reappearing with the next Congress.

To fully understand the virtues of eliminating income taxes it is helpful to consider the problem in somewhat different terminology. An income tax is primarily a tax on labor, with a secondary emphasis on taxing investment. Since taxing something is, in a sense, equivalent to penalizing it, income taxes penalize labor and investment, neither of which is a desirable policy.

Consumption, on the other hand, could easily withstand a modest tax burden. In fact, an alternative view of the consumption tax, or sales tax, is in part a tax on products. It seems fairly obvious that taxing products rather than labor is a more rational approach in general. But in terms of current American concerns it also has other desirable characteristics.

Taxing the product puts the American producer on the same playing field as foreign producers. Imported goods would suffer the same tax burden in the American market as domestically produced goods. In addition, by not taxing labor with the income tax, American goods would be more competitive in global markets. All the taxes on the American worker that are paid by him directly and by his employer directly and/or indirectly must be added to the price in and out of the country. No wonder we can't compete in international markets.

Another benefit relevant to current American concerns is how to level the playing field between the American worker and automation. By taxing products instead of labor, there is less of an advantage of replacing workers with machines unless efficiency is considerably enhanced, and one does not have to consider 'taxing robots' as one wag has suggested. In fact, the American worker then has an advantage over the foreign worker due to his higher productivity, and thus can command a higher wage without restricting trade imports.

Consumption taxes, or sales taxes, have of course been a favorite of State Governments for a century or more. These, however, have several drawbacks in their current form. Since American States are a common market, the main drawback is that different sales taxes in different localities cause considerable distortion to interstate and even intrastate commerce. There is a temptation to consumers to deal with retail outlets that are in low or zero taxed states, or by mail with out of state companies. States with higher taxes try to avoid this by supposedly requiring their citizens to forward a 'use' tax to the State tax authority, but in practice this is rarely done. A similar problem is found in State income taxes, where people with high incomes tend to move to low income tax states. Since the higher taxed states also tend to embrace more socialistic and welfare oriented policies, they will ultimately end up with all welfarites and no working schmucks, and therefore severe financial problems. Of course, the extreme example of this is the current influx of low-skilled indigents who may or may not seek menial labor jobs, but are also drawn by the lure of multitudinous welfare services and giveaways.

Another drawback with sales taxes as currently implemented by States is the collection method. Adding the sales tax at the point of sale is an annoyance both to the seller and the buyer. With electronic payment extracting small percentages on small sales is easily handled by computers, but sales taxes on cash sales are why we still have pennies in our currency. Due to inflation, the value of a penny is near zip, but to the state a penny extra from each sale is more loot to waste.

So implementation of a National Sales Tax should be carefully designed. Since the tax on a given product would be uniform across all States, the tax on retail products could be computed and remitted by the manufacturer, leaving the States to implement their point of sale taxes as is currently done. Federal Income Tax would be eliminated, but the States again would be free to keep or change their income taxes to compete for residents. Taxing new products is reasonably straightforward, but it is not obvious how to define 'services' to tax without in effect taxing individual income.

Notwithstanding the drawbacks and implementation challenges of a national consumption tax, the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It must be appreciated that most of the difficulty is due, as is often the case, with having the bad solution (income tax) to have gotten such a deeply embedded existence in our country. Any thing short of purging that demon and its burdens that have hampered American economic health for a century will not result in meaningful 'Tax Reform'.

The 'Fair Tax Act' is legislation which has been proposed to every Congress since 1999. It temporarily eliminates income taxes, estates taxes and payroll taxes and creates a National Sales Tax on all retail sales of new products and services. Since it includes provisions for refinement and includes a 'sunset' provision after a trial period if found lacking, it should be considered for a serious candidate for this iteration's 'Tax Reform'.

My book, Musings and Rants - 1985-2016 addresses the tax problem with several essays.

(c) Copyright 2017 Marcus Everett

marcus.everett@citlink.net