Posted on 08/10/2005 1:10:12 PM PDT by Final Authority
Michael Kinsley: The flat tax is a bad idea, as viable as a flat earth By MICHAEL KINSLEY Guest Commentary
IT IS TRUE that the Republicans are the party of ideas and the Democrats are the party of reaction. Republicans set the agenda, and Democrats try to talk the country out of it. But the Republican Party is hardly the Institute for Advanced Studies. The GOP uses ideas like seasonal sports equipment — taking them out when needed, then scraping the mud off and stuffing them back into the garage until they are needed again. Remember term limits for members of Congress? The flag-burning amendment? The balanced-budget amendment? Each of these has had a moment or two of glory, when Republican politicians, conservative TV and radio hosts and the Wall Street Journal editorial page all decided simultaneously that implementing this idea was vital to the survival of Western civilization. Polls soon showed a majority of Americans agreeing with them. The idea seemed unstoppable. It had the winds of history behind it. And then the wind died and the idea went away. I still can't figure out how we have avoided trashing the Constitution with an idiotic amendment against burning the flag. But the failure of these hot-button issues, in stunning contrast to the success of the party that has ridden them to power, suggests that for Republicans, ideas serve politics, rather than the other way around. The so-called flat tax is another hobby horse of the right that swept the nation, then got swept away. But someone forgot to tell Steve Forbes, the amiably blank-faced magazine heir, who ran for President on the issue in 1996 and 2000. Now he has a book out: "Flat Tax Revolution." It's getting the full fair-and-balanced treatment — that is, unashamed open-throated puffery — on FOX News and other conservative outlets. So even though the idea looks pretty dead right now, a stake through its heart might still be prudent. The flat tax is a game of three-card monte that deliberately confuses the issues of simplicity, fairness and the total tax burden on society. A simpler tax system would be a very good thing: good for the economy, and good for everyone's sanity. But contrary to what Forbes would have you believe, progressive tax rates — higher taxes on higher incomes — aren't what make the current system so complicated. It's as easy to multiply by 40 percent as it is to multiply by 17 percent. Even Republicans can easily do it — or hire someone to do it for them, if necessary. The complications come in defining and calculating income. Some of the complications are unavoidable because people and companies have complicated affairs. The day might come when you can file your income tax on a postcard (millions of people come close even today, with the sorta-simple 1040EZ), but that day will never arrive for Steve Forbes. As for the unnecessary complications, most of them were not put there by people or interest groups pushing for higher taxes and bigger government. Quite the opposite: The complications are mostly special rules for people or companies trying to lower their taxes. The nub of Forbes' proposal is this: Everybody would pay an income tax of 17 percent, with most deductions eliminated, but enough basic exemptions so a family of four would owe no income tax until it had income of more than $46,000. Of course, it would still pay the FICA Social Security tax. FICA, which starts at dollar-one, is a bigger burden than the income tax for most people. But it tops out at incomes of $90,000 and doesn't apply to investment income at all. But that is just fairness talking. Forbes figures that almost everybody would pay less under his proposal than under the current system. And just to make sure, he would let you opt to calculate your taxes under current rules, if you prefer. So everybody would pay less. That is swell. But it has nothing to do with the flatness of the tax system. You could just as well combine a tax cut with a proposal to release all the animals from the national zoo. People might like that too. A simpler tax system would be very nice. But find me some folks who would choose a flat tax over the current system even if it meant that they would pay more, not less. Then I'd be impressed. And if everyone gets a tax cut, where does the money come from? Do you really have to ask? It seems that no amount of recent experience can put a dent in the wonderfully convenient belief that you can raise tax revenues by cutting taxes, because lower taxes inspire people to work longer and think harder, yadda, yadda, yadda. Debate on this quickly becomes theological, so let's note only that tax rates were higher than they are now when Forbes had the inspiration to be born into a wealthy family, and higher still when his father, Malcolm, first built the family fortune. Next idea, please. Or, heck, why don't we take the balanced budget amendment out for another spin? It's been a while. Michael Kinsley is the editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
It's appropriate that this was posted without paragraph breaks, like the giant, jumbled mess of pablum that it is.
Should have a barf alert.......
The lunatic left is heard from again!
PS (we like paragraphs.) :):)
I was in a rush and the text I copied from was had 'graphs. Sorry, but just click on the URL if you wish.
The conclusion I come to is that the left is extremely afraid of supply side economics. Unfortunately, so are many Freepers.
Well, I don't like flat tax either, let's have retail sales tax, fairtax instead.
Tax Ping
If one wanted to make it progressive to ease the minds of the illiterate, one could simply subtract the minimum tax level from the income prior to applying the flat percentage.
This causes a curve at the bottom of the scale such that lower incomes pay less, or no taxes, while higher incomes pay a nice flat number.
I=Income
T=Tax
M=Minimum
If M=25,000 and T=20%
For I=100,000 the tax would be (100,000 - 20,000)*.2 or 16K
For I=20,000 the tax would be (20,000 - 20,000)*.2 or ZERO
and for
I=1,000,000 the tax would be (1,000,000 - 20,000)*.2 or 196,000.
The line is asymptotic to 20%.
Liberals hate equality. They can't play the evil rich card with this. Everyone will pay their fair share. Unless they can use the tax code to redistribute other peoples money, they will remain forever out of power. The only way they get votes is to promise people someone elses money.
I would rather have the national sales tax over the flat tax. The flat tax seems like the same garbage we have now: the government robbing my paycheck. But I would rather have the flat tax than what we have now.
> It seems that no amount of recent experience can put
> a dent in the wonderfully convenient belief that you
> can raise tax revenues by cutting taxes, ...
Oops. This dude shoulda checked the news before
uttering that liberal mantra.
> Michael Kinsley is the editorial and opinion editor
> of the Los Angeles Times.
Figures. He's also way out of the loop, because the
buzz in tax reform circles these days is the Fair Tax,
not the Flat Tax.
This statement is the logical equivalent of: "The orange is a bad fruit, as useful as a pig that can fly."
Do these writers ever stop to notice just how silly they sound?
Michael Kinsley always reminds me of the little play ground wimp, with a ball of spittle in the corner of his mouth, whose only creative comment is, "nunh unh!".
Why would anyone want to perpetuate the income tax?
That is not even mentioning keeping SS/Medicare taxes, and setting us up with a tax system that is but one very small step from a full fledged credit/voucher VAT with income tax.
We already have a century of the income tax system and what a flat tax becomes in short order.
Those that refuse to understand history are certainly doomed to repeat it.
You know whats a bad idea? Your lack of formatting.
What we have now is a flat tax. After 92 years of congressional meddling that is.
Well, I don't like flat tax either, let's have retail sales tax, fairtax instead.
Indeed.
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
I would stand in line for hours for the opportunity to bitch slap Michael Kinsley - what a whiny little liberal worm...
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.