Tax reform should be:
(1) revenue neutral under static assumptions or at least revenue neutral under dynamic assumptions
(2) incidence neutral (meaning not change the burden of taxes across income classes)
(3) provide for a transition (e.g., for 2 years, individuals can continue to file under the old rules)
Realistically, “3” is all that can be done for states and localities that are heavy into the complexity of the current system.
They are so much as admitting that they are manipulating their state and local tax systems so as to screw the federal government. And, although it will be tough for them, they’re just going to have to learn to pay their fair share of federal taxes.
If I had my druthers, I’d move to a value-added tax, including one that applied to any border where they hit us with a value-added tax, and eliminate the social security tax and exempt everyone under the median from federal income tax. (This was the Cruz plan.) Everybody would pay something, and the rich would pay more, but we’d cut out all the paper work.
Having said this, I’ll take a meaningful step in the right direction.
False. Look at the statistics. Government revenue increases when there is a huge increase in economic activity. Look at the 1960's and 1980's. What caused those spikes in economic growth? Tax rate cuts
You can throw that revenue neutral crap out the window, historical data disproves that.
Now you know the truth and you can stop with the revenue neutral BS.