Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Equality Tax: the Flat Tax for everything
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, April 22, 2006

We've discussed previously and at great length the reasons why, with one caveat, the Fair Tax (i.e., National Sales Tax) is a thoroughly wonderful idea. Unfortunately, that one caveat is that, for reasons both political and economic, the Fair Tax is pretty much impossible to implement.

That leaves us with a Flat Tax as a viable tax reform. As I've discussed before, the first benefit of a flat tax is that it would incorporate a price mechanism into our system of government. As it stands, far too many spending and tax cut proposals are floated on the idea that we'll just pay for it by soaking somebody else. With a uniform flat tax — especially one that does not differentiate between different forms of income — the cost of new spending or tax cuts would be harder to hide.

So, it's heartening to see another libertarian — Jeffrey Alan Miron at The Case For Small Government — discussing the merits of a Flat Tax...
One advantage [of a flat tax] is simplicity. Some improvement comes from the reduced number of rates, although this is minor given that most people let H&R Block or TurboTax calculate their taxes. Greater simplification comes from taxing all income at the same rate and eliminating deductions, exemptions, and the like.

Naturally, strict moral-libertarians would be unhappy with a flat tax — and, indeed, with pretty much any government at all. But I'm more of a proponent of sharply limited government than I am of the moral case for libertarianism in politics. If I believe in limited government, then, of necessity, I must believe in government itself. So, the argument over taxation is really just an argument over what form we'd rather it take, and I tend to side with "minimally intrusive, economically efficient, with equality under the law".

A flat tax fits that bill, and the simplification to which Miron refers is would go a long way towards making our income tax system more economically efficient. Some years back, in his Efficient Taxation of Income proposal, Dale Jorgenson wrote that...
A major objective of tax reform is to remove barriers to efficient allocation of capital that arise from disparities in the tax treatment of different forms of income.
Those barriers to efficient allocation arise in large part from the perverse incentives that Christian Sandström described in a New Libertarian article. Politicians "create loopholes in order to please interest groups", but eventually "the granting of benefits to special interests is subject to diminishing returns" after which "it is not profitable anymore for politicians to create more loopholes in the tax code" and tax reform happens. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Various groups — like the Center for American Progress — have endorsed the idea of applying a graduated, progressive rate schedule across all forms of income; that would, as CAP explains, "tax each kind of income according to the same rate schedule, whether the income is derived from wages, salaries, capital gains, or dividends". A flat tax across various forms of income, however, would make it that much harder to grant favors to special interests or to distort the market in favor of powerful rent-seekers.

With that in mind, the best proposal I have seen is the Hall-Rabushka flat tax.
Under our flat tax, all income would be taxed once and only once, at a uniform low rate of 19 percent. Our plan is fair to ordinary Americans because it would permit a tax-free allowance of $25,500 for a family of four. The family would pay a tax of 19 percent on its earnings above that allowance. Millions of U.S. residents would no longer pay any income taxes. All wage earners would pay less tax under our flat tax than under the current system.

Our flat tax would eliminate the distortions of the present tax treatment of business. It would replace a hodgepodge of depreciation schedules with an effective investment incentive, a first-year write-off. It would reduce the current corporate tax of 35 percent to 19 percent. It would eliminate double taxation of business income by ending taxation of dividends and capital gains.
More details on this plan can be found at the Tax Policy Center. Greg Mankiw (he's blogging now, natch) also favors it, inter alia, on the grounds that it would help increase national savings.

There's a great deal that can be done to promote libertarians ideas and ideals, but in the current environment it must be done in a way that appeals to liberals and conservatives. A Flat Tax could appeal to all three groups. Libertarians would love to see a price mechanism applied to the government. Liberals would appreciate the mandatory effective progressivity and the end of tax breaks and favors that create regressivity. Conservatives would go for the increased simplicity and reduced marginal rates.

The trick, of course, is to convince each group that this is not a zero-sum game; that a compromise exists that should accomplish the goals of each group: an Equality Tax.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

There are two aspects to what you’re endorsing. One is determining the tax rate, the other is determining the income and deductions (if any) that will factor into the tax calculation...

... which means that this tax proposal has exactly the same chance of being enacted as the Fair Tax proposal you rallied around a while ago.

Why? Because the liberals/Democrats will never agree that the million dollars you make should be taxed at no higher a rate than the few dollars that I make (or do I have that backwards?). Because the supply-siders on the right will never agree to treat investment income no different than wage income. Because the various lobbies will never agree to not provide for deductions for such worthy causes as charities, mortgage interest payments, child care expenses and so on.

And because basically nobody in Congress will stick it to their respective contributors... all of whom will fight to the end to preserve their favored treatment.

Other than that, I’m sure we’ll see a flat tax in Bush’s next budget proposal... wait, he’s one of the biggest proponents for taxing investment income at a lower rate than wage income. Oh, never mind.
Written By: steve sturm
I have to say you hit the nail on the head Steve. I am a liberal democrat, but I would LOVE to see either a Flat tax or a National Sales Tax (FairTax) be enacted. Alas I know these are nothing more than pipe dreams as either proposal would slash the influence of lobbyists in messing with our tax code. Do you really think enough members of Congress are going to let go of that cash cow??? Not on your life. For that reason alone we will never have any decent tax reform. It will always be more of the same. Letting big business control our laws, our taxes and our lives! Thank you Congress for supporting your constituents!
Written By: Mary Lee
Mr. Henke:

Although I disagree with your conclusion that implementation of the FairTax is impossible to achieve, I would like to offer one comment on the Flat Tax concept.

It’s already been tried. It was tried in 1913 and again in 1986 by President Reagan. What we have today has grown from the latter attempt. Without a methodology to preclude our congress from doing the same thing a Flat Tax gains us nothing because we will soon return to what we have today.

The workforce in this country is continuing to shrink and so long as you continue to tax earnings your source of revenue will also shrink. Only by expanding the tax base can we survive and to-date the FairTax is the only alternative which accomplishes that.


Duane Neighbors
Written By: Duane Neighbors
URL: http://
Gee whiz Mary, do you really think our tax code is solely the result of big business influence? Too much kool-aid Mary.
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
>Our flat tax would eliminate the distortions of the present tax treatment of business. It would replace a hodgepodge of depreciation schedules with an effective investment incentive, a first-year write-off.

Depreciation is designed to reduce distortions. In general, if you let businesses write off in one year the big purchases of items that last more than one year, that introduces distortions rather than eliminates them. People end up shifting income around using these techniques, helping them avoiding taxes by (for example) buying more big things every year than is necessary for a profitable business. Not that depreciation eliminates that entirely, but it reduces the incentive.

At any rate, it’s not worth the electrons to think about it ever changing (IMO), because as others have said, it gives the pols too much power and the people are too afraid to take that power away.
Written By: BSing
URL: http://
The flat tax may have merits, but I beleive that it will be politically impossible to implement. I could possibly see people getting behind the idea of flattening the structure of tax brackets, but unfortunately I doubt that people are going to be willing to give up all of their lovely deductions.

Most politicians that seem to support flat-tax proposals, want it to be a flat tax with deductions... They have little incentive to give up one of the primary tools that they use to direct pork towards special interests. Average voters will never get behind the idea of a) paying higher rates and b) losing their child and mortgage deductions.
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
While we are dreaming, why not have a VAT consumption tax instead?

VAT also is nice because it’s rebatable for exports.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Sounds great to me, but I have one major problem:

"It would eliminate double taxation of business income by ending taxation of dividends and capital gains."

Sorry, corporations count as a seperate legal entity, and provides considerable legal protection. It is NOT double taxation to tax once on corporate income and once on payout as dividends and capital gains. Dividends and captial gains are a form of income, they should be taxed the same way.

Other than that, as a liberal, I love the proposal. My major progressivity concerns are taken care of with the 25k base exemption.
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Sorry, corporations count as a seperate legal entity, and provides considerable legal protection. It is NOT double taxation to tax once on corporate income and once on payout as dividends and capital gains
I might agree with you on capital gains, but you are wrong on dividends. If you own a shares in a corporation, those shares represent your percentage ownership of the corporation as a whole. You, as one of the owners of a corporation, are taxed on the profits your corporation makes, and then you are taxed again when you receive what’s left of your profits. This is double taxation.

Dividends are not salaries, which would be deductible from the corporation’s bottom line. Rather, they are after-tax profits divided among the owners.

Your statement that corporations are separate legal entities with considerable legal protection falls completely apart when you consider S-Corps. In an S-Corp, the entity is a corporation and has all the legal protection of a corporation, but the profits are only taxed as income to the owners, not at the corporate level. An S-Corp isn’t materially different from any other corporation, it just has fewer shareholders. So, why should corporate profits be taxed only once for an S-Corp, but twice for another corporation?
Written By: Steverino
The problem with the proposal is well summarized in the conclusion to the Tax Policy Center’s paper:
In principle, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax, such as the flat tax, offers the possibility of improving the efficiency, equity, and simplicity of the tax system. But these gains are uncertain and depend critically on the details of the reform. At least some of the gains could be made simply by modifying the existing system.

Idealized consumption taxes may always look better than actual income tax systems. Once in place, though, they would be subject to the same compromises and pressures as the income tax is. They could even lead to a system that is less efficient and less fair than the one we have.
The point is, there are no perfect tax systems. Each system creates its own misallocations of resources, which in turn create political pressure to alter the incentives. In any system, people with the resources to do so will seek to minimize their taxes, either through politicians or tax planners. So it seems to me that the best you can do is to try and keep the incentives from getting grossly out of whack by effecting changes at the margin, regardless of the system you have.
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
Personally I am in favour of HIGH taxes, on everyone, except myself... further 10% of all funds generated by Federal taxation hsould flow to me, personally. I’m willing to share the wealth with all who support my taxation position. I’m not greedy there’s plenty to go around....
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m a liberal. I like the flat tax. Just be sure it includes Social Security taxes (no topping out) and corporations. It would be nice if we could get rid of sales taxes, gas taxes, and phone taxes at the same time.

If we get rid of ALL of the taxes that hit the working person hardest at the same time we cut taxes the rich, we will probably all be better off.

Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Well, I was hoping for a discussion where people could contribute without the usual name calling and personal attacks. Does that make me a touchy feely liberal? I prefer to think of it as good old fashioned American manners. Begin able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Mary, it was wrong for someone, in my opinion, to say something so rude as to attribute your comment to drinking too much kool-aid. That being a means to be dergatory towards a person and their position and implying that they are unable to think for themselves. Suprisingly, the ones that use that expression are the ones that get their views from radio talk show hosts that do their thinking for them. I love irony.

Many issues are of importance on both sides of the political aisle, such as what is a fair way for us to get income for the government that we need, or what can we do about people losing their homes because of eminent domain.

Take for example, eminent domain... a conservative would argue that the property rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by the wants of the government... while the other side would argue that the property taken is generally of the lower income that displaces people for the benefit of a company such as home improvement store. They both agree that something needs to be done... a quick google check will show that this is an issue. However, to agree with the opposition takes it out of the bag of tricks with which we can beat up the opposition... thus, it won’t be settled because it is great to demonize the other side and to profess ourselves as the virtuous ones fighting for... Note people, I am not specifiying any particular party, I believe it goes both ways.

Why work towards a solution with the other party when it is so good for fund raising or scare tactics? The flat tax is the same way. But, it seems that even if a liberal is to agree with a conservative, it can’t help but be used as an opportunity to demean that other person. Sad isn’t it?

The arguments aren’t based around what the facts are... what the truth is... what the common goals are that both are trying to reach... it is about trying to be cute and to make the other person feel devalued and to promote a particular political agenda rather than fixing things one issue at a time.

Would this person try to sell someone a car by starting off insulting and calling the prospective buyer an idiot? Or a kool-aid drinking liberal? Yet, when it comes to ideas and making America better, it is more important who gets the credit than whether or not something is done.

For the past year or so I have been going from blog to blog looking for intelligent, reasoned debates and discussion... sadly, what I find often is childish rhetoric and attacking of the person and not the facts. I try to give each blog a couple of months to build up a relationship and get to know some of the people... unfortunately, "unknown" seems to be a pretty popular way to express inane meaningless dribble.

As far as the facts... I don’t know about the S-Corp so I will have to look into that if I have the time. As I have mentioned here on another topic, symbolism is important, and money is used for expressing the value (as was reminded to me) and not actual value... I know when my ex and I went to court for child support she had $100 hair and nails, a red sports car and all other neat things, but her company showed her actually losing money... So, if S-Corps are a way for used for attaining the benefits of money without it showing up as income, then it needs to be looked at carefully... otherwise the person gives themself the minimum they can get away with and lets the company take care of them.

When people think about the correctness or morality or righness or whatever of a person paying the same percentage on $40,000 as $4 million... or any other type number it might be easier for people to agree if the pay of some of the executives were tied to some rational metric. What about the value given to an executive in perks such as a company car, expense account, housing, country club membership, etc.. Would that be taxed as personal income? If we only tax take home pay how do we get around the people trying to get around the system?

If a person is worth a $300 million dollar retirement package based upon his contribution to the company... is that a good thing for the shareholders? The owners of the company? Wasn’t he paid a salary while performing that task? Why would they pay him $300 million to retire on? IBM is eliminating their retirement packages. Not because they cannot afford them, but because they do not have to pay them out.

The news is talking about the large increase in uninsured workers. These are not low lifes... they are not just burger flippers but American workers doing everything they are supposed to be doing in a country where if you work hard and do the right things you will be happy and able to take care of your loved ones. Some don’t want the government to do it because they think that the people should get the retirement from the company they work for as a benefit for their work... while companies are believing they don’t have to do it if they all get together and stop... because there isn’t anyplace to go. If a company drops their coverage does the worker get the equivelant that the company had been paying to get coverage or contribute to their own medical or retirement?

My point with all of this? Trust. A flat tax or any other tax would have to be premised on fairness and trust... and I don’t see that happening in the prevailing atmosphere.

That is where I have a problem with theory versus reality. I do have a business degree so I know the theories and believe that they would work... but they often don’t for many reasons. Now, some might call me names and suggest things about my parentage, education or experience... fine. But, the actual ways any type of regulation, control or limit can be, and will be, gotten around cannot be denied by any rational person.

And, if the discussion is turned towards name calling or winning brownie points with the cheering gallery instead of rational facts, we can kiss any real change goodbye.
Written By: Darren7160
URL: http://
If I believe in limited government, then, of necessity, I must believe in government itself.
Sweet. My major objection to most libertarians fully addressed in one simple sentence. Perhaps not included solely for my benefit, but appreciated nonetheless.
Written By: Nathan
"Just be sure it includes Social Security taxes (no topping out)"

So CindyB, do you also therefore suggest that with no cap on the FICA tax that there is likewise no cap on benefits? Or are you for even greater income transfer via FICA? You also must have no qualms with the cost/benefit ratio of the social security program which is too bad since it’s pretty much a bad deal for almost all involved. Gee whiz, if social security is such a winner, why even bother having personal retirement accounts?
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I have come to the conclusion that we might HAVE to have a sales tax, since we wont do anything about imigration. At least with a sales tax everyone pays.
Written By: kyle N
My point with all of this? Trust. A flat tax or any other tax would have to be premised on fairness and trust... and I don’t see that happening in the prevailing atmosphere.

That is where I have a problem with theory versus reality. I do have a business degree so I know the theories and believe that they would work... but they often don’t for many reasons. Now, some might call me names and suggest things about my parentage, education or experience... fine. But, the actual ways any type of regulation, control or limit can be, and will be, gotten around cannot be denied by any rational person.

For God’s sake, bottom line up front next time, instead of paragraphs 14 and 15.

Of course rules can be gamed. For 10 people to work together to get a 1 million dollar federal grant from their CongressCritter results in a $100K payoff for them but only increases my taxes by pennies. Saving the pennies isn’t worth the effort to me; getting the $100K is probably worth it to them.

Gathering huge quantities of money at a central location increases that effect; keeping tax collections at the lowest level possible decreases that effect.
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Let me be the bull in the china shop, crashing into a few truisms of the flat tax religion.

Doing one’s taxes is only as complicated as the taxpayer wants them to be. If I don’t want to have to deal with figuring out my itemized deductions, I don’t have to take them. If a business doesn’t want to have to spend time tracking depreciation or keeping track of how much they spend on pencils, it doesn’t have to take a depreciation or an office supplies expense. Taxpayers and businesses spend time doing their taxes because the taxes they save is worth the time they put into doing their taxes (in fact, there’s probably nothing else that comes close to the same return on time as does doing one’s taxes).

So what you’re proposing is to make people spend their time elsewhere by eliminating the incentives that make it currently worthwhile to spend their time looking for deductions... what makes you so sure that all of this extra time will be put to worthwhile uses? Why should we think that having a bunch of tax lobbyists with time on their hands will be a good thing?

And once you’ve established an amount of income that is free of tax ($25,500, in your proposal), you don’t have a flat tax on all income, you still have a progressive tax (the taxpayer making $50,000 pays, if my math is right, a 9.3% tax, the taxpayer making $100,000 pays a 14.1% tax - that ain’t flat) albeit one with fewer levels... and once you’ve opened the door to ’some’ progressivity in the tax code, there’s no good argument against having many more gradations of income tax rates.

But the biggest problem with your proposal is that we will still have to define ’income’ and ’expense’. Will income be defined as cash received, or will it be matched to the performance of the service for which payment is made? What are ’deductible’ business expenses? Will equipment purchases, now currently required to be capitalized and depreciated over time, suddenly be immediately deductible? Or not at all? A lot of the behind the tax-scenes stuff going on relates to defining income and expense for tax purposes... so your flat tax proposal won’t address this aspect at all.

As I said above, other than this, it’s a great idea...
Written By: steve
URL: http://
"in fact, there’s probably nothing else that comes close to the same return on time as does doing one’s taxes"

Steve, come on, really! You’ve got to be kidding! This is similar, if not the same, as the broken windows fallacy. If I could save/pay the same amount in taxes w/o spending any time plodding through the tax code and instructions as I do now, my return on time can only get significantly better.

Furthermore, not everyone invests the time in saving every last dollar in taxes because they know that the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost of the effort. Plenty of us simply don’t want the fed to have one more cent than the law says they should have.

Plus, who gives a rat’s *ss how people spend their time that was once used to complete tax returns? That’s their d*mn business! Your best argument is that they might squander it on something worse? Should we just make you ruler of the world now so that we commence the implementation of your superior vision?

Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Also, is today really "Saturday, April 22 2006"?
Written By: Nathan
Yeah, what Nathan said. Just what sort of flim-flam is Q&O trying to pull here?
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://

Yeah, well, you’ll notice I didn’t say it would. In fact, in my previous discussion on the Flat Tax, I wrote...
Careful, though: simply shifting to a flat tax rate would not reduce the transaction costs appreciably; whether there is one tax bracket or five, after all, one only needs to know simple division. The savings in transaction costs would come in eliminating tax loopholes, shelters and other avoidance incentivizing mechanisms.
It’s only similar to the broken windows fallacy in the sense that the time spent getting those tax breaks is a dead weight loss, when compared to similar levels of a flat tax. Our current system makes taxpayers do a lot of work to get effective tax rates similar to what we could probably achieve with a flat tax.
Also, is today really "Saturday, April 22 2006"?
I’ve applied to flat tax concept to the week. I tossed out the whole "different days" thing. Now we don’t have to figure out what day it is, or adjust our behaviour for "different" days. It’s always the weekend!

I think this is a concept that people can really get behind. Especially lazy people.

No, I actually posted this initially Saturday and just bumped it up for today.
Written By: Jon Henke
This is the right kind of idea, Jon. I think some of the people knocking holes in it probably have some good points, and it’s unlikely to be fixed soon, but it’s not impossible. People really do dislike the current system, people of all stripes. Simplification has legs.

Having said that, I don’t know if I could ever bring myself to trust a Republican proposing a flat tax. It’s always seemed like code to me for a massive lowering of rich people’s taxes and a lot of smooth talking to disguise the tax increases that would result to the poor/middle class. This proposal makes a good start at satisfying those concerns, but only a start. Poor people don’t pay much in taxes already. I wouldn’t mind simplfying the method by which we get to that point, but I’m not sure how 25K matches against the reality.

A sales tax is a perfect example. I like consumption taxes to encourage saving, but they have to focus on luxury items only. Dumping the income tax for a massive indiscriminate sales tax would not only send the country into a depressed-consumption shock that would equal the 1930’s, but it would drive poor and middle-income people into bankruptcy and poverty.

Think I’m smoking crack? To go right to a national sales tax, it would have to be about 15-20%. I’m an ordinary american, income-wise, and adding 20% to my grocery bill would send me in the tank very quickly.

These sorts of ideas always and desires always seem to lurk a few steps behind flat-tax-proposals.

We can agree that simplification is good, though. Usually. Or, in any event,that a round of it might be useful right now.
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Here’s the thing I don’t get:
Okay, going to a national sales tax would add 20% to your grocery bill. But you could choose to buy less processed food if you wanted to pay less taxes, so you could probably eat just as much and spend the same amount without a 20% increase if you just adjust what your purchase.
Most importantly, though, you’d have 20% more income to spend on everything you buy.
Written By: Nathan
Sure, that extra 20% income would be nice. I mean, you’d do a lot to have that kind of extra money. Including, I don’t know, say, not purchasing things in places where you have to pay taxes. Buying everything on through your personal corporation, so it’s untaxed. (business expenses!)

When you’re talking about 30%+ sales taxes — and the Fair Tax people are — then you’re talking about MAJOR avoidance/evasion activity. That’s the empirical evidence. I don’t see any reason to believe we’d all suddenly become tax-paying angels on the NST Honor System.

Written By: Jon Henke
"I don’t know if I could ever bring myself to trust a Republican proposing a flat tax. It’s always seemed like code to me for a massive lowering of rich people’s taxes and a lot of smooth talking to disguise the tax increases that would result to the poor/middle class."

And to think I’ve labored under the delusion that I could read the details of a proposal and determine for myself if it is reasonable. Guess I’ll join you Glasnost and rely on authority figures and the media to tell me what to believe and think.

Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Glasnost, your alleged 20% grocery bill increase will be offset by your income tax savings as well as that first chunk of income that would be tax free. In theory your overall taxation would be no worse and you would have more control over your total tax by controlling your spending.

I’m rather tired of reading assertions that some sort of flat tax "would drive poor and middle-income people into bankruptcy and poverty." If you can’t support this with some meager form of actual data, best to be mum. No rational person is interested in any flat tax proposal that will have the effect you fear because it couldn’t possibly last long, let alone get off the ground.
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
People already avoid taxes by using corporations to pay their bills. Please see Hollywood types, and Arianna Huffington.

Also, I would suggest people look into how Europe manages high VAT rates.

They seem to have rates approaching 30% and yet still manage to collect taxes.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Just for kicks, Taiwan has an innovative way of making sure consumers ask for a receipt (and thus pay the VAT)

Each receipt has a unique number, and every two months they hold a lottery. You then check your receipts and can win cash prizes with your receipts.

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I, for some reason you are not interested in what I have to say, or the way that I say it... please feel free to just pass on over it. I don’t believe that text in the cyberworld costs that much...

I say that trust is an issue without explanining why then I simply get moronic replies telling me how stupid I am or how I just don’t get it. Usually from people who get their ideas from radio talk show hosts.. they want to be told what to think and then move on to the next subject.

For instance, your example is breif to the point of my not being sure what you mean. It is okay for a little bit of grants here and there because it is only pennies? How many grants before the pennies add up?

Or, are you saying that taxing the consumers and the people is only a couple of thousand dollars to them, but taxing the corporations equals millions? Thus, spread the pain down the people paying just thousands instead of companies paying millions? Doesn’t that closely resemble communism/Marxism where each is paid according to his needs? Maybe I don’t understand what you were saying.

But again, this is out there for people to read if they choose to. There won’t be a test. Don’t want to read what I have to say because it isn’t in an executive summary format? Then don’t read it. Simple really.
Written By: Darren7160
URL: http://
Also, I would suggest people look into how Europe manages high VAT rates.
The VAT is not much like the NST. The Fair Tax is not a VAT.

Written By: Jon Henke

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks