WSJ: One Simple Rate - A flat tax would uleash a stupendous economic boom, by Steve Forbes

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 15, 2005 | STEVE FORBES

[OESY]

A major domestic battle looms this fall, when tax reform-- a centerpiece of the president's bold domestic agenda-- will finally be on the table. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is expected to release its findings by the end of September. After the political shellacking the White House took on Social Security, the administration will be strongly tempted to take a conciliatory path that supports only superficial reforms, essentially preserving the status quo of our hideous income tax code.

Such a course would have perilous consequences, economically and politically. In fact, the administration has an opportunity here to boldly retake the initiative, to recover lost political support and thrust an already decent economy into high gear and, at the same time, make America better able to meet intensifying competition from China, India and others. How? By junking the entire federal income tax code and starting over with a flat tax. A growing number of countries are doing this -- and so should we.

The current system is beyond redemption, a beast whose complexity, confusion and outright unfairness have corrupted our economy and society. Americans waste more than $200 billion and over six billion hours each year filling out tax forms. They engage in all kinds of useless economic activity intended to take advantage of the code's complicated maze of deductions and to reduce taxes -- from deducting donations of old socks to making unwanted investments. The waste of brainpower -- at a time of increasing global competition -- is incalculable.

The code corrupts our system of government by encouraging the crassest political conduct and by creating a massive, intrusive federal bureaucracy. One-sixth of the private-sector employees in Washington are employed by the lobbying industry. One-half of their efforts are directed at wrangling changes in the tax code....

[Bigun]

Yep, he's merely one of the SQL Trolls. Just another disruptor trying to make noise with nonsense.

And, as has been said before, if he wasn't here we would have to invent him.

He and others like him have done more for the FairTax movement than they could possibly imagine.

[lewislynn]

Then you haven't been paying attention to the news. Federal revenues have gone up in the last few quarters, while we had tax cuts in the last two years.

Ancient Geezer has disputed that many times on these threads... when it has suited him.

[lewislynn]

Oh yea, he even has one of his nice charts to prove you wrong...

[pigdog]

The only negative thing I can think of about the FairTax (when contrasteed to the income tax) is that it is not yet the law ... but that'll change soon.

[Final Authority]

We think using language. The language of any subject has certain meanings, that is, terms have meaning. When one thinks using terms where one doesn't understand the term or the meaning of the term (same consequence) one cannot think clearly or have a clear understanding of the subject. If one doesn't have a clear understanding of the subject then ones entire view of the intricacy of the subject as it relates to other subjects, such as government, industry, politics, for example, must be questioned.

I see it so often on these threads that folks think they understand a subject but do not understand the basics of what they are writing about. You just happened to be the umpteenth poster making a comment on the concept of tax base where you are demonstrably wrong and since it is a basic indication of ones understanding, I thought I would bring it to your attention.

The reason I bring it up is simple. Over history when government expands the tax base, ie, more things being taxed, not people, the government can and will exert more control over the taxed. That is, a larger tax base historically is not in the interests of a free republic.

[pigdog]

Well, Nightie, that's not true (either).

We have A LOT on the FairTax side of the ledger aside from just the economics including 2 tax bills before Congress that will be coming up for vote as well a very large grassroots group that is now approaching 1,000,000 people. There has even been some chatter about a march on DC.

We also have a proposed tax system that is simple, understandable, and will greatly boost economic activity in this country. And you have ...??? The Nightmare Tax???

[pigdog]

I think, Nightie, you should capitalize the word "squirrels" - to be "Squirrels" - so the small animals will not feel insulted and demeaned.

[pigdog]

Well someone is certainly wrong ... but it is NOT servantboy777. He's right on the money when he speaks of increasing the tax base both in terms of the number of people who will be paying taxes (many do not now) as well as the total that will be raised due to greatly increased economic expansion (with the attendant lowered rates).

One needs to try the FAQs on the FairTax website or the Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax:

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

[Your Nightmare]

I think, Nightie, you should capitalize the word "squirrels" - to be "Squirrels" - so the small animals will not feel insulted and demeaned.

I think you should stop trying to ridicule people.

[Final Authority]

As it is so often, you and your fellow farttaxers are so wrong. Check out the following and get back to me.

http://www.answers.com/tax+base&r=67

[groanup]

Let's see if I can make this link work:

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#9

[rwrcpa1]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yakkin' on a bone? He got it up!

[pigdog]

I'm always interested in what you say, Nightie ... but not very!

[pigdog]

I'm BAAACK, Finial ... where would like it? Bend over!

In the case of the FairTax (which is really what is being discussed), the tax base is personal final use consumption of new (untaxed) items.

Your definition is more general and even misses that as an example. What's your question now?

[pigdog]

Works great (but only for those who can/will read.

Very interesting, in fact.

[pigdog]

ROTFLAS!

[Final Authority]

You are correct and saying exactly what I am now and wrote in the past, that the tax base is not people, it is things. It is what taxes are assessed on, not the entities who pay the tax.

So, since you and fellow farttaxers have seen the light, when will you next require remedial education?

[Final Authority]

Oh, BTW, I couldn't have written that column in the WSJ better myself, or did I? Read the last 'graph, I think you will see some familiar thoughts.

[pigdog]

Un no, Finial, what I am saying is that the tax base is based upon people since it is they that do the consuming and make those decisions (and pay for them with their untaxed money).

It is also not an assessed tax since the rate is already determined (unless you consider it self-assessment somehow).

We don't agree at all.

[pigdog]

If you really believe that last paragraph then y=why do you struggle so hard to preserve the status quo in the form of an income-based tax --- any income-based tax?