TAXES WHAT YOU DON’T WANT, NOT WHAT YOU DO:

Trump Should Finish What He Started (Jason Harrison, Nov 26, 2024, Cremieux Recueil)

Back in 2005, the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, established by President George W. Bush, rolled out proposals that echoed the principles underlying the DBCFT. Their plans included lowering marginal tax rates, eliminating certain deductions, and promoting saving and investment—concepts that resonate with the DBCFT framework. Interestingly, aspects of this tax reform have found nods of approval from both sides of the political aisle. Jason Furman, who served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, has highlighted the merits of specific components, particularly those that promote simplicity in the tax code and encourage economic growth. In fact, many Democratic lawmakers and advisors, whether openly or in quieter conversations, have also recognized the value of this approach, underscoring their bipartisan appeal. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the eventual enacted policy born out of “A Better Way” and signed by President Donald Trump, included provisions that have been recognized for their positive impact and could serve as common ground for future bipartisan tax policies. It’s true, parts of the TCJA genuinely are worth hanging onto.

When you peel back the layers, the tax reform plan put forth by the Republicans that was later embodied in the TCJA isn’t so much a radical leap into the unknown as it is the culmination of a long journey through scholarly research and policy evolution. It reflects a convergence of ideas from economists, policymakers, and bipartisan commissions, all wrestling with the never-ending challenge of designing a tax system that promotes efficiency, fairness, and growth. In an era where the United States faces increasing competition from countries like China, mounting national debt, and the challenges of profit shifting by multinational corporations, the urgency of effective tax reform is undeniable. A tax system that enhances international competitiveness, supports long-term wage growth for workers, and simplifies the complex web of current tax regulations is essential, and the DBCFT offers a compelling framework to address these issues.

Advocacy for a Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax is really advocacy for consumption taxation in disguise, so it makes sense to first actually address what consumption taxes are, or, more importantly, what people mistakenly think they are (spoiler: they’re not just taxes on your latte habit.)

When you peel back the layers, the tax reform plan put forth by the Republicans that was later embodied in the TCJA isn’t so much a radical leap into the unknown as it is the culmination of a long journey through scholarly research and policy evolution. It reflects a convergence of ideas from economists, policymakers, and bipartisan commissions, all wrestling with the never-ending challenge of designing a tax system that promotes efficiency, fairness, and growth. In an era where the United States faces increasing competition from countries like China, mounting national debt, and the challenges of profit shifting by multinational corporations, the urgency of effective tax reform is undeniable. A tax system that enhances international competitiveness, supports long-term wage growth for workers, and simplifies the complex web of current tax regulations is essential, and the DBCFT offers a compelling framework to address these issues.

Advocacy for a Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax is really advocacy for consumption taxation in disguise, so it makes sense to first actually address what consumption taxes are, or, more importantly, what people mistakenly think they are (spoiler: they’re not just taxes on your latte habit.)

The future al every policy is the past of W, in this case Neoconomics.

THE rIGHT IS THE lEFT:

The poison of white identitarianism (Inaya Folarin Iman, Dec. 22nd, 2024, spiked)

A mishmash of primarily online political subcultures have emerged over the past few years, vociferously defending white identity. It shares striking similarities with woke identitarianism. These advocates share so-called progressives’ racial essentialism, their obsession with identity and their conspiratorial mindset. Some have called this emerging movement the ‘woke right’, others the Very Online right. Either way, anyone who values liberal principles should be concerned.

These new rightists’ nihilistic resentment, indeed their racial identitarianism, is in danger of being passed off as a ‘legitimate grievance’ by the broader right – as an understandable response to successive governments’ failures on immigration; as of a piece with more general public concerns. At the very least, there is a hesitance among some conservatives to call out these toxic views. […]

But identitarian rightists are not expressing legitimate concerns about immigration, governance, the economy, fairness and social cohesion. They are criticising immigration on the dubious grounds that it is a means to dilute white British culture, through the sheer weight of non-white numbers. This is the ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory – a crackpot fixation once found only in the darker corners of the internet that is now being increasingly mainstreamed. Indeed, one proponent of right identity politics delivered a public lecture earlier this year, presenting migration as the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of white Brits and warning that they are due to become ‘a minority in their own homeland’. […]

[T]o dismiss the emergent identitarian right as an insignificant minority would be to make the same mistake as many liberals and leftists once did. They dismissed wokeness as being limited to pesky, pink-haired university students, and subsequently proved unable to resist its mainstreaming.

The obvious difference between woke and MAGA is, obviously, that we actually subject black to systemic discrimination.