The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Flat Truths

10.17.05 @ 12:01AM

THE NEW THIRD RAIL
Re: Peter Hannaford's The Road to Hell:

Peter Hannaford's piece on the President's Panel on Tax Reform bought tears of delight to my eyes. While I consider myself a C-Span fan, programs having to do with tax reform glue me to the screen. Why? Well, we all need some form of escapism, and if anyone doubts that ten years from now the IRS code will not have metastasized from nine million to fifteen million words I admit you have more faith than me. The modern flat tax is simply an economic version of a modern hunting rifle -- it enables those competing with the U.S. for monetary game to collect more in an efficient and fair manner. Instead of that, the Congress has elected to stick with the proverbial 19th-century flintlock, making changes to the lock mechanism, changing the size of the flint, the caliber of the ball, and manipulating the size and length of the barrel and stock in order to placate the whims of those who build and service the device. Meanwhile, our competitors bring home more game. Congress is too politically short-sighted and economically retarded to do anything more than tinker meaninglessly. The flat tax remains the third rail of 21st century tax reform -- still, if President Bush survived raising the subject about that other third rail, Social Security, perhaps all we need is time.
-- Daniel Frater
Kew Gardens, New York

The current tax system is, as Mr. Hannaford pointed out, screwed up. The President's advisory panel on our tax problems is a corrupt group of panderers to accountants and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. I can think of no other reason for their stance on tax reform. The Flat Tax would be a great improvement over our current system.

However, compared to the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax just plain sucks. The Flat Tax still gives the federal government my money before I get the chance to invest it. Even worse, the Flat Tax still gives the government information on how much I make and how. In light of the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, I don't want a group of bureaucrats so contemptuous of private property rights holding any information on my income. The Fair Tax does not give the government any information on me other than the number of dependents in my household. The Fair Tax allows me to invest my money before they confiscate it without me having to jump through hoops asking them to extend to me the favor of allowing me to invest some of it tax-free. Under the Fair Tax, I don't get taxed until I spend. To support the Flat Tax over the Fair Tax is to surrender (a French word meaning, "to wuss out") to the types of wishy-washy, sorta kinda, low-octane wimps that make up way too much of the Republican Party right now. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Wouldn't fighting for something be a nice change in the "strategy" pursued by Republicans since 1994?
-- Mark Stewart
Jacksonville, Florida

Peter Hannaford's article on the futility of the President's tax reform panel makes the case for what he calls a "flat tax." That allows opponents to raise the hoary old issue of the rich not paying their fair share -- a real concern even under the existing complicated tax system. (I am still trying to understand how Mrs. Heinz-Kerry paid only 15% tax on her reported plutocrat's income.)

However, the tax proposal that Mr. Hannaford favors is not "flat." It has two rates -- 0% below some limit and 17% above. The important point is that the "flat" tax proposal is simple, not that it is flat. The advantage lies in the elimination of all those complex tax provisions aimed at social engineering, not in the elimination of so-called progressivity in tax rates.

A practical approach to build wide support might be to focus on a "simple" tax instead of a "flat" tax, continuing with the several levels of tax rates as in the current scheme. Allow individuals the choice of continuing to be taxed according to the current code for, say, the next ten years (to protect those who have allowed themselves to be socially engineered) or of switching to the new "simple" tax.
-- Gavin Longmuir
Stanley, New Mexico

As a far into middle age semi-professional, and a student of both American history and current events, I can honestly say that no matter whom I speak to about the federal income tax code, that person, love it or hate it, is forced to admit that a flat tax system, almost ANY flat tax system, is easier, fairer, and more effective than that which we now have. Those who want to tinker with the present system always use the excuse that it would be "impossible" to drop what we have and switch to another system. Those who believe that our present system is grossly unfair usually surrender to the "impossible" argument.

I think that there are too many gored oxen, too much bubbling graft, and too many people paying nothing for the system to be changed. If you think that we are on the way to becoming a welfare state, then think again! We are one! If you don't believe me, look at the statistics on who pays federal income tax, how much they pay, and how it is collected. Look at the enforcement arm of the IRS. Look at the filing forms. If you can lift it, look at the book of tax law. A second term president might be able to get the ball rolling, but I don' t suppose that it will happen in my lifetime. Above all, take a good look at the Federal Budget. Welfare, Schmelfare, we are as socialistic as any of our European friends. We are just in clinical denial. A flat tax would be a giant step away from this situation.
-- Joseph Baum
Garrettsville, Ohio

Neal Boortz and his fair tax is much simpler and fairer then the complicated flat tax of Forbes.
-- William T. Mason

Are you kidding? The flat tax is way too simple to be
approved in America. Not enough double speak for the pols. If it makes sense and is easier, it will never pass through Congress.
-- Elaine Kyle

MIFFED CONSERVATISM
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Include Me Out:

Happy days are here again. Whoever would have thought an internecine dispute within the Republican ranks over a Supreme Court nominee would pop up and restore the Democrats to control of the White House, the Congress and, oh yes, the Supreme Court itself? Miffed conservatives now hate George W. Bush and will sit out the upcoming elections. And then, President Clinton and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Leahy can fill the inevitable high court vacancies with their cronies. Real smart!
-- Sarsfield Matthews

I rarely write editors, having been one myself and therefore knowing it to be an exercise in futility. Also, I cannot remember ever disagreeing with Mr. Tyrrell on any important issue. It is therefore with profound regret that I must take him to task for "Include Me Out" on all points, one of which I shall make here emphatically: Whatever else motivates conservative opposition to Ms. Miers's nomination, in this time of global war and natural disaster it surely cannot be boredom.
-- David Adrian
Pontiac, Michigan

About Mr. Tyrrell's final question: "Was it not general boredom that accounted for the election of Bill Clinton over the perfectly normal President George H. W. Bush?"

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Bill Clinton, Federal Budget, Social Security, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Conservatism, Energy, Oil