August 16, 2004

THE FLAT TAX COMPROMISE:

Is it time for a flat tax? (Paul M. Weyrich, August 16, 2004, Enter Stage Right)

In the three Congresses during which Hastert has been Speaker, he has a remarkable record of being able to pass almost all of the conservative agenda. Only on some environmental issues and on McCain-Feingold, the so-called campaign reform law, did a coalition of liberal Republicans and all but a handful of Democrats override Hastert.

The record Hastert has compiled would be the envy of Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr., (R-MA), the only other Republican in modern times to preside over a Republican Congress. Like Gingrich, he had two terms but not consecutive. He also had a slim margin, but he could not get nearly the agenda through the House that Hastert has pushed. The reason you hear little about Hastert's accomplishments is because almost every victory he achieves ends up in the scrap heap of a Senate filibuster or inaction by Senate Committees.

Barring a Kerry blowout in November, Hastert is almost certain to be Speaker a fourth time. Some speculate it will be his last term, although the Speaker is not term-limited the way some of the other leadership positions are.

In any case, Hastert has a new book out. (Who doesn't?) In it, in addition to telling his life story, the Speaker says he wants to make the abolition of the IRS a priority. He would do that by the imposition of either a national sales tax or a Value Added Tax (VAT) such as in European countries.

I fear a VAT tax because it is silent and can be increased without taxpayers knowing how much or where. Several different transactions are subject to the VAT and it has been blamed for Europe's economic stagnation.

A national sales tax would be fine with me, but that means we would have to amend the Constitution to get rid of the income tax. We just don't seem to be able to amend the Constitution for any reason in recent times. I wonder if we could in this instance. Unless we did that, we surely would end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. That might be good for the government coffers, but it would be a nightmare for consumers.

Why not try a flat tax...a flat tax with deductions for only mortgages and charities. If everything else were eliminated, and I mean every other deduction, the IRS would not have nearly the power it does now. The reason it has all its power is due to the incredibly complicated tax code.

In addition, The Wall Street Journal recently reminded us that prior to 1940, Americans paid all of their federal taxes at one time. April 15th. That was a black day for lots of taxpayers, especially those who didn't put aside money for taxes during the year. Right now, most taxpayers have no real idea what they fork over to the federal government every paycheck. [...]

The combination of a real flat tax and returning to the once-a-year payment system would certainly dilute the power of the IRS.


Aren't true-blue conservatives like Mr. Weyrich supposed to be disgusted with the GOP?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 16, 2004 11:17 AM
Comments

Don't amend the Constitution... or try to. Charge EVERYONE who files an income tax of $1.00 to satisfy the Constitution. That would satisfy the law, and would allow a retreat if the flat tax proves unworkable. Scuttle the IRS. Yea ! for a truly flat tax: no exemptions, no non-profits, no charities, no corporations. What you spend determins your tax, paid at the time you spend. The US Treasury should like getting tax money "in real time", rather than waiting, although we pay our taxes in advance, now, ie payroll deductions, estimated tax, etc.

Posted by: William at September 26, 2004 11:27 AM
« THE WAR THAT MATTERS: | Main | IT'S NOT FAIR--THEY HAVE THE ANTI-ZIONIST WHACKJOBS & WE JUST HAVE RESPECTED COLD WARRIORS (via Kevin Whited): »