Replies

The best part about this proposal is that the federal government could never sustain enough revenues to support current levels of spending with a 28% sales tax. At around 10%, the marginal gain in revenues from an increase in the sales tax rates turn negative as the incentive grows to avoid those taxes and turn to black markets. 28% is WAY over that number. Unfortunately, that is also a reason why the tax may not gain support in Congress.

As much as I loathe an income tax, the best bet we may have for sustained reform is to push for a flat rate income tax of around 20%. It is not ideal, but is certainly preferable to the Leviathan that is our tax system now.

"Unfortunately, that is also a reason why the tax may not gain support in Congress."

I understand your concern. However, you forget one thing - these guys work for US. When enough Americans understand the benefits and demand it from their legislators, it will pass. I will share two experiences to support my point.

When Bill Clinton was President, congress passed welfare reform bills 3 times. The first two times, he vetoed them. The 3rd time, he signed it. What was the difference? Glad you asked. The 3rd time his pollsters told him the American people were solidly behind welfare reform and that if he continued to veto that legislation and came to be viewed as obstructing it, he would pay a political price for it. Lo and behold, a welfare reform champion was born! He even listed welfare reform as one of his administration's accomplishments during his later State of the Union addresses.

Here in Georgia, we are seeing the issue affect campaigns. Why the difference between Georgia and the other states? Glad you asked. Because Rep. John Linder and Neal Boortz have been educating about the issue for some time now. Georgians are more familiar with the proposal than any other group in the nation and are therefore more supportive. The one thing that we have found is that the more you know about the proposal, the more you support it. That is, unless you have a vested interest in perpetuating the current system because some of the billions we spend in compliance costs go into your pocket.

Anything you want to tell us about how you earn your living, Willie Green?

"As much as I loathe an income tax, the best bet we may have for sustained reform is to push for a flat rate income tax of around 20%."

You are quite right to loathe an income tax, but dead wrong to look to a flat income tax for "sustained reform". Our history is just the opposite. The Tax Reform Act of 86 flattened the rates to 3 levels, I believe, and eliminated many of the deductions in the name of simplicity. The lobbysists thought that they had died and gone to heaven. They immediately went to work reinstating all the old preferences (and then some) and billed their clients for that time, of course. The 86 TRA should have been labelled the tax lobbyists full employment bill. The mess that we have today is the 86 TRA amended hundreds of times and it is far worse than the system before 86. The trend toward increasing complexity and spiralling compliance costs with an income tax is inescapable.

The problem is that we have been trying to define just what "taxable income" is for over 90 years now and the result is a jumbled up mess that noone - not even the professionals - understand. The income tax is a failed experiment that we should acknowledge as such - sooner rather than later.