[Andrea19]

A Freeper already posted Kevin Williamson's piece here. Williamson for his part responds back at National Review Online on the subject of the VAT and taxes in general.

Help promote Conservative activism here & here & here & here

[GeronL]

National Review does have it kooks and girly men

[jhigh]

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.

[The_Reader_David]

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!

[Rogle]

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.

[curiosity]

On to the shocking apostasy of Stuttaford and Williamson.

Anyone who treats fiscal policy as if it were a religion is an idiot who shouldn't be taken seriously.

[curiosity]

As to the non-religious substance of the post:

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.

[curiosity]

Here's a post by Andrew Stuttaford at NRO about how a tax , which included a tax very similar to a VAT, worked very well in New Zealand in bringing both the deficit and government spending down:

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.