Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Flat Tax - Was: should I kill off this car (a 1993 Subaru Impreza)?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Jonathan King wrote:

> On 1/3/07, Christian M. Cepel <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > Here's my argument:
> > http://www.amazon.com/Flat-Tax-Revolution-Postcard-Abolish/dp/0895260409/sr=8-1/qid=1167861362/ref=sr_1_1/102-3039159-8181723?ie=UTF8&s=books
> > and
> > http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/sr=8-2/qid=1167861414/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-3039159-8181723?ie=UTF8&s=books
> >
> > Both are excellent.
>
> Neither involve an actual economist.  In all seriousness, if your 
> strongest arguments for a flat tax depend on a political hack (Forbes) 
> and somebody like Neal Boortz, then I really do have better things to do 
> with my time. Call me an elitist, but I tend to listen to economists 
> about things that are economics (and to physicists about physics, etc.)
>
> In any case, here's a review of the one book that I think mentions 
> Forbes, too.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/books/review/13slemrod.html?ei=5088&en=adb65ce66e79b77f&ex=1289538000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print


First, I agree thoroughly with Jon on the issue of expertise.  Why expend 
effort reading the words of hacks who are only trying to manipulate your 
vote?  For the same amount of effort you could learn something fundamental 
about economic principles, or whatever you want to learn.

I think everyone wants simplification of the tax code and loophole 
reduction.  This flat tax idea is wacko.  Even Forbes doesn't really 
support it (saying he would allow people to choose whether they pay flat 
tax or not).  The Boortz idea seems quite bizarre and infeasible.  I have 
to wonder why he bothered to write an entire book about it.

Both of these twisted plans are designed to increase the tax burden on the 
middle and working classes and reduce the burden on the very wealthy.  In 
my view, the very wealth are, well, wealthy, and they don't need a special 
new tax code to make their lives better.

Reducing the total tax burden seems like a good idea, but only *after* you 
have reduced spending.  The plan for Reagan and Bush I&II administrations 
has been to massively increase defense spending and to either reduce tax 
rates or hold them down, thus increasing the deficit enormously.  This 
merely shifts the tax burden to the future.  Why do people like that?  It 
is reckless and wasteful.  Wake up.

Finally, I strongly disagree with the claim that reducing taxes on the 
wealthy somehow causes them to work harder to make life better for the 
rest of us.  How does that happen?  Is there evidence for this? 
Strangely, this seemingly untested theory is the basis for all of these 
plans to increase the wealth of the wealthy while reducing the wealth of 
the middle and working classes.  If you want to help people, how about 
reducing their taxes?  It's easy to see who multi-millionaire Forbes wants 
to help, and it ain't me.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion