Posted on 10/20/2010 12:06:08 PM PDT by Andrea19
...When Mitch Daniels said last week that a VAT as a part of tax reform is worth exploring, he obviously didn't see the damage that a VAT did to Europe. The simple fact is that a VAT in the U.S. would lead, over time, to higher aggregate levels of taxation. It's likely that the other taxes will rise as a VAT grows. The burden of proof is on those who say this won't happen, since the facts of history show otherwise.
As for a VAT as a total replacement, that's just not going to happen. If there was ever enough of a political consensus to repeal the 16th amendment to the Constitution, why would we ever want to replace it with an opaque tax that's easy to raise? That level of political consensus would more likely lead to a tariff and excise tax regime. Besides, debating repeal of the 16th amendment is akin to talk of restoring the Holy Roman Empire. It's a waste of time outside a booze-filled graduate dormitory bull session.
On to the shocking apostasy of Stuttaford and Williamson. Stuttaford didn't like the fact that ATR President Grover Norquist called Daniels' pro-VAT musings "outside the bounds of acceptable modern Republican thought."
First off, the opinion is outside those bounds. You don't get to be a conservative on taxes anymore if you're calling for the implementation of the same "tax reform" that created Western European bankrupt socialist states. You can turn in your tax bona fide at the door, governor...
(Excerpt) Read more at atr.org ...
Help promote Conservative activism here & here & here & here
Norquist is a hack that endorsed Specter all the way back in 2008, before he even knew would be running against him. He has no credibility whatsoever.
Only if the VAT-enabling legislation triggers the VAT only upon ratification of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 16th Amendment would a VAT as part of tax reform be acceptable.
In that context, I think I’d be all for it. Otherwise, not just no, H*LL NO!
Dump social engineering from the tax code.
I hadn’t heard that. Do you remember where you saw that originally? (Ways back I know.) Unusual for anyone to endorse for the next election, before the current cycle has ended; but stranger things have happened.
In late 60s England instituted a VAT tax without repealing their income tax. By around 1973 their economy was decimated, unemployment went through the roof and companies moved to the main content of Europe. As a result property values in London tanked. Is that really what we want here or shall we learn from their mistake. There is no way that I would support a VAT without the removal of the income tax.
He headlined a fundraiser for him. His people now argue that this isn’t the same as endorsing him, but I’m pretty sure raising money for someone is a tacit endorsement, yet?
Here’s where it appeared originally: http://pawatercooler.com/?p=3718
But can there ever be a successful repeal of the 16th Amendment? Until there is, a national income tax can always be brought back by Congress, or worse yet an activist Supreme Court. I’m too scared of both a VAT and federal income tax. And would a flat VAT be better than a flat income tax?
Anyone who treats fiscal policy as if it were a religion is an idiot who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Definitely strong support I would say at the minimum. I guess Grover never imagined that Specter would actually leave the GOP. But thank the Almighty that the Tea Party has brought Conservatism back to reality, and may give the GOP one more chance to redeem itself.
I don't like Norquist either, but ad hominem arguments like the above aren't particularly convincing.
If you disagree with him (as I do), then attack his argument. Attacking him is counterproductive because his argument might be valid even if all the bad things you say about him are true.
And no, his credibility isn't relevant in this context, either, as he's not acting as whitness or asking us to take his word on anything.
I see your point, but we live in a nation where baseball is secular religion to many. (Though baseball actually edifies.) Still, the late Ronald Reagan did have his “Eleventh Commandment” he issued; not that anyone at NRO or ATR is the next RWR.
It is all fine and good to have a secular religion about a pastime that doesn't actually matter. In fact, as you say, it's probably edifying, as it provides people with a harmless am escape from the daily grind.
However, treating important policy matters as if they were religion, and enshrining certain ideas as if they were divinely revealed truths, and treating anyone who dares question them as a heretic, can only be destructive to the polity.
It used to be that conservatives based their policy proposals upon rational argumentation backed by rigorous empirical analysis. Norquist and his ilk are treating them as religious doctrine, and I find the frightening.
Still, the late Ronald Reagan did have his “Eleventh Commandment” he issued;
Treating politicians, and even great statesmen like Reagan, as if they were prophets is equally perilous.
I agree with you on the 16th. The income tax must not only be repealed, but made explicitly unconstitutional or else the libs will say "The 16th was repealed, but the commerce clause still allows an income tax".
When Mitch Daniels said last week that a VAT as a part of tax reform is worth exploring, he obviously didn't see the damage that a VAT did to Europe.
This is nonsense. There's no evidence that the VAT damaged Europe. Rather, what damaged Europe was the spending and the high payroll taxes used to pay for their social insurance programs. If France, Germany, Sweeden, etc. had tried to raise the revenue they get from the VAT from income taxes instead, they would be in far worse shape today.
That a VAT is a far less destructive way to raise revenue than the income tax is one of most robust empirical results in Macroeconomics.
The only reasonable, substantive argument against a VAT is that it is hidden, and hence very easy for politicans to raise. However, that's an implementation issue, not an issue with the VAT itself. There are ways of implimenting a VAT that can make it no less transparent than an income tax.
Besides, while VAT opponents love to cite figures on how VAT's everywhere increased substantially over time, the exact same thing is true about the income tax.
Less paperwork for people, no taxation of income from saving (hence less deadweight loss), and much less potential for social engineering.
I think what people have in mind is cutting the income tax and offsetting that cut with a VAT. However, that should only be on the table once we have passed some serious, scrutural reform of entitlements.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/197650/doug-elmendorfs-brain-vat-contd/andrew-stuttaford
Above all, I think we need to be a movement that's about ideas. That means we shouldn't attack people who are throwing ideas out there in good faith. Shoot down the ideas if they're bad? Sure. But treat them as heretics or apostates? Absolutely not!
The populist, anti-intellectual turn the conservative movement has been taking over the past 5-6 years frightens me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.