GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Hat tip to mornincoffee…
Fred Thompson’s tax plan, released this morning, seperated his position from some of the other contenders. Thompson is one of the few GOP hopefuls that offers the flat tax. The plan is a qualified endorsement of the Taxpayers Choice Act, or the “flat tax.” With this plan, which is outlined here, in pdf, Thompson has taken a pretty bold step, as he did with his social security plan.
From the AP:
Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
Thompson’s proposal, announced on “Fox News Sunday,” would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.
Asked whether the plan would cut too deeply into federal revenues, the former Tennessee senator and actor said experts “always overestimate the losses to the government” when taxes are cut.“We’ve known for years any time we have lowered taxes and any time we’ve lowered tax rates, we’ve seen growth in the economy,” Thompson said.
Thompson added that money would be saved by his Social Security reform plan. He proposed that workers younger than 58 receive smaller monthly Social Security checks than they are now promised. Individuals could contribute 2 percent of their paycheck to a personal retirement account, an amount that would be matched by the Social Security trust fund.
The retirement plan “faces up to the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt and we’re going to have to do something about it,” he said.
The fact is that he has followed up on his promise of overhauling the current tax code. The plan has been supported by the Heritage Foundation, Steve Forbes, the Club for Growth, the CATO Institute, Chief Justice John Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Dick Armey, to name a few.
Among the other GOP contenders, John McCain has been supportive of it. Mike Huckabee favored the tax, but has now become an advocate of the FAIR Tax, which is not the same thing (see below). Tancredo and Ron Paul support it (he supports no tax). Rudy Giuliani’s position on the issue is not that clear, but I was late to the whole debate on his position. He seems to favor a more moderate form of revision, but does not endorse the tax. Romney also favors a simplification, but has criticized the flat tax as recently as April, and has said that he is opposed to it. Sam Brownback proposed a very similar plan to Thompson’s before he departed from the race.
However, according to CNBC, no major Republican candidate was, as of 10/9:
“currently running on a flat income tax,though Mike Huckabee is pushing a flat consumption (sales) tax to replace the income tax altogether “
Well, I guess we have one now.
The Flat Tax was originally authored by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka in this book, published and assisted by the Hoover Institute.
In arguing for the proposal, Race42008 contributor DeRoy Murdocke, in April of this year, wrote that:
Americans deserve a voluntary flat tax. Those who love this gargantuan Tax Code, its multiple rates, and baroque intricacies, should be free to keep filing form after form, if that makes them happy. Meanwhile, those who prefer a flat rate with few if any deductions should be free to choose a postcard that would ask one’s name, address, and income, and a simple calculation for, say, 17 percent thereof.
Politically, a voluntary flat tax would let issue-starved Republicans and conservatives avoid a wrestling match with Democrats and liberals over keeping or scrapping the charitable or home-mortgage deductions. Instead, the Right can argue for giving Americans the freedom to select between two available systems. The sales slogan is simple: “It’s your tax. It’s your choice.” Let the Left argue against granting Americans that option. The Right can win that fight.
Next year, Utahans will choose between either a traditional, six-bracket tax (from 2.3 to 6.98 percent) with exemptions and write-offs, or a simple 5.35 percent flat tax without deductions. The Beehive State will join flat-taxing Estonia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, all of which have seen their economies energized by a single tax rate on income. Even Russia has jettisoned its three-bracket system and its 30 percent top rate on incomes above $5,000. Instead, it has embraced a 13 percent flat-rate tax.
“Before the flat tax, most salaries were paid as cash under the table. That almost has disappeared,” said Yuri Mamchur, director of the Real Russia Project at Seattle’s Discovery Institute. “It’s easier to pay 13 percent than to avoid it.” The former Muscovite added: “The flat tax contributed to economic growth, but more importantly, it sped Russia’s return to the rule of law.”
Hoover Institution economist Alvin Rabushka concurs. “The low flat rate contributed to the decline in capital flight [and] improved taxpayer compliance [in Russia],” he said. In fact, tax evasion in Russia has gone the way of the Gulag. Since the Kremlin adopted the flat tax on January 1, 2001, revenues have swelled 128 percent after inflation.
If the flat tax is good enough for the former Evil Empire, it’s good enough for America’s embattled taxpayers.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Fred Thompson… The man… the myth… the joke
November 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Great discussion Iowa. I wrote this hoping for some serious debate on the matters of the tax proposal, guess I misjudged the maturity level of some of our readers…
November 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
The flat tax as Thompson envisions it is a fantasy. It won’t be passed even if we had a majority in the Senate and House.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:05 am
I misjudged the maturity of Fred Thompson.
He could have easily stolen the nomination on July 4th, 2007. There was so much built up mojo for him, yet he blew it.
Now Fred is a joke in the media. There is absolutely no way he can recapture what he had.
Fred Thompson is officially the Wes Clark of 04.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Well, I guess the media will make up your mind for you…
November 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Econ grad,
That sounds like the same argument everyone makes about the HLA.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I’m not sure using the Russians as a reason why a flat tax works is such a good idea. Russian politics and finances aren’t exactly up to legally acceptable standards even with this so-called improvement. The author cites an increase in revenues of 128 percent. Considering there was no compliance with the old system (as the article’s author mentioned, most salaries were paid under the table, and that was with a max tax rate of just 30%), one can’t really attribute the success in revenue collections to a new flat tax. And while a flat tax may be “good for the evil empire,” we should take note that political assisinations, dictatorial presidential powers, limited press freedoms, and a state-run economy all seem to be good enough for them too.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
alaska,
It has now been adopted in multiple countries in the EU, not just the evil empire, but you may be right in that point. It’s a bad example.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
These are cheap tricks. Even with constant cheerleading by the President they WILL NOT PASS the Washington legislature.
(to be read with sarcasm) What’s good for Estonia and Lithuania (the flat tax) must be good for the United States.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
…Steve Forbes and the Club for Growth…
My, do those two speak for working class America!
November 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
sampo,
McCain supports it too.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
what are the states that have no state income tax and instead raise money via sales tax? I can tell you none among them are economic powerhouses.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:28 am
not exactly, tommy. mccain said he’d sign it if it came to his desk. he knows congress will never pass it ever so it’s basically a moot point.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:30 am
So, he’s pandering to gain conservative support by using something he doesn’t really support?
November 26th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Tommy,
One of the dirty little secrets of Brownback’s flat tax plan was that once you switched to a flat tax, you couldn’t go back to the old fashioned itemized deductions. Is that the same here?
One of those graphs is fairly misleading in the way it presents marginal tax rates as a function of taxable income, considering how different the taxable income calculation is under the current system and the proposed flat tax. I recall the numbers breaking down such that a rather large majority of Americans (something in the 60-70% range) would see a tax HIKE under the flat tax proposal. The knee-jerk reaction will be to say “well dummy, choose the old system then”. But if the switch to a flat tax is permanent, this could effectively be a tax trap for many Americans who get sold on it as some idealistic post-card method of filing.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Tommy #14, good one.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am
14, yes.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
murphy,
No, not the same, from what I understand, but I am still going through all the details of it, and noticed the Brownback plan used a similar formula, but am not sure of his specifics.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Ed Morrissey asks about a Fair Tax. McCain responds about the system in general. “Fair or flat or whatever. It’s an abomination.” McCain mentions the 22% Estonian Flat Tax. 99% income tax compliance.
got it.. an abomination.
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/07/24/mccain-blogger-conference-call-3
November 26th, 2007 at 12:37 am
‘flat tax’ was the magic word for Huckabee in Iowa’s straw poll. It would appear that Thompson is trying to squeeze what little magic is left from that phrase.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:38 am
murphy,
here is some more on it…
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/thompsons_new_tax_plan.php
November 26th, 2007 at 12:39 am
tommy,
add me on facebook already.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hey Tommy,
Gotta call you out on this. This is just plain dishonest reporting.
“The plan has been supported by…Chief Justice John Roberts, …, to name a few.”
When we follow the link, what do we see? Some endorsement by Roberts of Fred’s plan? No. We find this:
“As a second-year law student, he startled his tax class by wondering aloud whether the government should switch to a flat tax.”
November 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I recall the numbers breaking down such that “a rather large majority of Americans (something in the 60-70% range) would see a tax HIKE under the flat tax proposal. ”
OF course. It is the dirty little secret of all “flat tax” proposals.
They are supposed to be revenue neutral.
They all entail a dramatic reduction in the marginal rates for higher-earners.
So guess who makes up the difference?
November 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Tano,
I didn’t say that Roberts endorsed Thompson’s plan. I said he was a supporter of the flat tax.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Sampo,
Will add you as soon as I figure out how to log back on and add friends…
November 26th, 2007 at 12:49 am
In general I support a flat tax but with a negative income tax for low earners. We ought to just have a minimum income (not wage) and then eliminate welfare.
Everyone gets 9,000 dollars for breathing but pays a flat tax on everything they earn. Milton Friedman was right on this.
The poor, elderly and disabled would have their own money and not have to be ruled by petty bureaucrats. In addition we’d save billions of dollars by eliminating the welfare bureaucracy.
Nixon tried it in 1973 but the Democrats wouldn’t cross their federal employee unions and Democrats sided with them against the poor, elderly and disabled. Big surprise.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:50 am
25,
or.. Roberts supported it several decades ago. If my memory serves me right Roberts backed away from a few things during his hearing for the SCOTUS.
btw. I think Roberts is awesome. I remember watching him during the hearings and was literally in awe of him. He definitely ranks among the top 5 I’d like to have dinner with.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Use this link to answer further questions tonight. I have to get some sleep…
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817993115_157.pdf
November 26th, 2007 at 12:53 am
timing is everything. thompson is starting to make a lot of sense and look like a good candidate now. too late though. i think him and ron paul have equally likely paths to the nomination ( and i mean that as a good thing for ron paul )
November 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Sheesh. Am I the only one who has started liking Thompson more over time?
I’ve been in love with Thompson lately. He’s just not very good on the stump. But I think he’d make a fantastic President. Everyone thought he’d come roaring out the gate whining about abortion, but he’s been a principled federalist and he isn’t afraid to get a little snarky with the media.
Giuliani-Thompson ‘08 is sounding better every day.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
The flat tax as Thompson envisions it is a fantasy. It won’t be passed even if we had a majority in the Senate and House.
This argument is somehow never very convincing when I apply it to abortion, egs.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:09 am
TLG, that’s because abortion is a moral issue and to my taxes are entirely pragmatic.
I’d try to save my wife from rapists even if I had only a 1/1,000,000 chance of success. I’d prefer better odds than that when I’m dealing with something practical like tax policy. By suggesting an unrealistic tax you remove the possibility of a compromise to improve it.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:09 am
“I said he was a supporter of the flat tax”
Because he thought out loud about it in class once, 30 years ago?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:10 am
31, there’s a moral component to the pro-life movement that doesn’t exist in the pro-flat tax movement.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:16 am
“If the flat tax is good enough for the former Evil Empire, it’s good enough for America’s embattled taxpayers”
Thats pretty funny.
Lets take the lead from Russia when it comes to running a tax system.
Is this the most pathetic argument yet, or what?
Almost as good as the compliance argument - lets tax high-earners less so they actually obey the law.
Here is a concept. Lets enforce the law.
Why is it only the wealthy who, when they break the law, just get the law changed?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I’d try to save my wife from rapists even if I had only a 1/1,000,000 chance of success. I’d prefer better odds than that when I’m dealing with something practical like tax policy. By suggesting an unrealistic tax you remove the possibility of a compromise to improve it. -egs
31, there’s a moral component to the pro-life movement that doesn’t exist in the pro-flat tax movement. - sampo
Would you still try to save your wife from rapists if you had a 0% chance of success and you’d get harmed in the process? You have a 0% chance of success with the Human Life Amendment and the party would be hurt enormously in the process.
And I think there’s a moral component to theft, myself, but that’s just me!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Oops.
Would you still try to save your wife from rapists if you had a 0% chance of success and you’d get harmed in the process? You have a 0% chance of success with the Human Life Amendment and the party would be hurt enormously in the process.
And I think there’s a moral component to theft, myself, but that’s just me!
There we are.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Tommy,
Thanks for the Hoover link. But that article is rather slanted, to the point of it being somewhat misleading. A couple of thoughts.
1. I found this gem about 2/3’s down:
That is blatently untrue. I think it would be safe to say that a majority of Americans would pay slightly MORE under the flat tax.
2. Also, the article dodges several good points on charitable contributions, by essentially saying “Sure you’ll get hurt, but your savings weren’t as much as the wealthy were saving anyway.
3. Related to #2, a lot of it reads like it was written by Robin Hood, out to get those dastardly upper-income earners, when in fact, they are the ones who often benefit the most under this scheme.
4. The method of treating stock options as income regardless of excersize freaks me out. Talk about a dis-incentive to join a risky start-up tech company.
5. I STILL find no answer on the subject of whether or not a person is locked into the flat tax scheme. Given the similarities to flat tax plans earlier this year, I can only assume it IS still the dirty little secret here.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:24 am
not interested in debating theory. i’m just telling you how it is.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TLG #37, I can only infer that you find it easier to sympathize with harm coming to your pocket book than to a loved one.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:27 am
TLG, there’s no theft involved in taxes. You agree to pay taxes in return for participating in American society. If you don’t want to pay American taxes you can move away.
If there was a 0% chance of victory?
Nothing consistent with the laws of nature is impossible. So a HLA amendment is possible. Other actions to reduce abortions are even probable. However in my way of life we protect life because it is a primary moral imperative not solely because of consequences.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:30 am
TLG:
“Oops.
Would you still try to save your wife from rapists if you had a 0% chance of success and you’d get harmed in the process?”
There’s no situation where I’d have 0% chance. I’d gladly allow harm to come to me for even a negligible chance of saving my wife. That’s what love is TLG.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:45 am
“TLG #37, I can only infer that you find it easier to sympathize with harm coming to your pocket book than to a loved one.”
What did I say to make you think that? That I don’t embark on futile missions? That I think that involuntary taxation is theft?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:50 am
“Nothing consistent with the laws of nature is impossible. So a HLA amendment is possible. Other actions to reduce abortions are even probable. However in my way of life we protect life because it is a primary moral imperative not solely because of consequences.”
Oh, Jesus Christ, what a stupid answer. Yes, it’s possible and consistent with the laws of nature that a HLA could be passed. But it’s not going to happen, see?
I suppose it’s also possible that Hillary Clinton will abandon the Democratic Party tomorrow and endorse Fred Thompson, too.
There’s no situation where I’d have 0% chance. I’d gladly allow harm to come to me for even a negligible chance of saving my wife. That’s what love is TLG.
Ugh, you were speaking in idiotic, implausible hypotheticals, so I figured that I would, too. That was a dumb mistake, because when you give an irrational man an inch and he’ll take a mile.
Get over it — the HLA is not going to happen. Just move on. It’s not going to happen. Why don’t you devote your energies to promoting pro-life causes in the free market rather than waste your time trying to make it illegal?
November 26th, 2007 at 1:52 am
TLG, all taxation in America is voluntary.
If you don’t wish to pay a tax then don’t buy anything or work or invest.
If freedom from taxes is so important you can start today by stopping activities where you implicitly agree to be taxed.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:52 am
TLG,
What you said was to question whether someone would REALLY try to save their wife if the odds of success were 0%, and if they might get hurt in the process. I literally recoiled from that statement. Perhaps it is simply the case of you making a bad analogy.
I agree with EGStud in #42 and #43.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:56 am
TLG: “Get over it — the HLA is not going to happen. Just move on. It’s not going to happen. Why don’t you devote your energies to promoting pro-life causes in the free market rather than waste your time trying to make it illegal?”
I spend most of my energy on abortion in free market efforts. I volunteer for a pregnancy care center. My wife is deeply involved in those efforts. I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t practice my morals in the free market as well as the voting booth.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:43 am
fred and his people wont admit it, but entering as late as he did, in the way he did was a huge mistake. a blown opportunity
November 26th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Econ #48
Your volunteer work is heroic.
And love is when watching a loved one’s suffering hurts you more than if it had happened to yourself. That you would trade places with them in a heartbeat and take the suffering yourself.
Of course you would protect your wife from a rape attempt at all costs.
And we will keep pushing for “impossible” political solutions. It didn’t look possible that women could ever vote.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Back to Thompson’s tax plan, I have to agree with those who say 1) the devil is in the details; and 2) a lot of people would be paying more under a flat tax. Sure a lot of people out of sheer simplicity of preparation will choose a flat tax.
But what struck me first about this piece is the list of supporters, not by who was listed but who was not. Are there no liberal or moderate groups that support it? No one is going to get a major overhaul of taxes without bipartisan support. At least someone actually on the House Ways and Means Committee would be good.
I do give FDT great credit for putting proposals forward. His next step is telling us how to pay for them.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Thompson looked very weak yesterday. Attacking Fox and Huckabee? Come on…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
November 26th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I disagree. Thompson did well to defend himself against the Fox naysayers. And he did it without being angry or shrill.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I don’t think he was angry or shrill as much as it came across as just plain whining. Remember, it was on Fox News, specifically Hannity and Colmes, where Thompson first was about to utter the “criminalization” code word that turns off the social conservatives. And Hannity preemptively shut him up before he stepped into that land mine.
To me it seems like Thompson was given the royal treatment when he and his wife and kids had the interview on H & C. I think it’s fair to say that Fred didn’t mind the fawning coverage he got from news outlets when he was being coy about getting into the race at all during his “testing the waters” phase. He made a point to say that he was going to campaign in a nontraditional way and basically had an attitude that he was rejecting the regular rules of campaigning. Well and good. But Wallace pointing out that Fred’s campaign has floundered is perfectly fair. McCain got the same treatment when he was on Fox News Sunday a month or so back. Why should Thompson be exempt from such questioning? Especially when the buzz (on that horrific website Free Republic and elsewhere) was that Thompson was supposed to be the conservative savior. Remember? Giuliani was supposed to be clobbered with Thompson’s entrance. Since that hasn’t happened I think it’s fair enough to ask why it hasn’t.
At minimum, Fox is no more harsh on Thompson than any of the other networks.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
But has Fox been as harsh to Giuliani? That is where the disparity lies. Sure, they have done hit jobs on Huckabee, Romney and McCain, but nothing on Giuliani.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Feltcher,
That’s fair. But Fox, at least early on, was generous to Fred and his candidacy. I don’t think Fox has been too harsh on Giuliani but I think that has more to do with the fact that news outlets want a NY vs. NY race than anything else. I definitely do think that if Thompson came out strong right out of the gate that everyone on the conservative side of the media would have consolidated support behind him, just like they did with Bush in 2000. After all, Fred had the name recognition. He had lots going for him. He had the potential to unite social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks. So many people from so many different corners of the Party wanted to support Thompson and some still do. But Thompson squandered it and he has no one to blame but Fred Thompson.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Feltcher,
I agree with you. Fred handled himself well, and Fox has been outrageously kind too Rudy. I thought Fred was borderline awful on Meet the Press the other week, but his FNS interview was considerably better.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Bruce Bartlett got it wrong. And so has Fred Thompson.
(Paraphrased) Reply by Dan R Mastromarco (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown, principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org) to:
“A National Sales Tax Doesn’t Add Up” by Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999
Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I’d like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.
For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a “money machine”). Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka “subtraction method” [H-R] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side. Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings. Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the “flat tax” and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that “its DNA characterizes it as.”
Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal). Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn’t), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn’t). In the next breath, he “throws his arms around” the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.
An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times. Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes. Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.
While some have even suggested that hey are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.
Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn’t mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other. If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have MUCH material with which to HONESTLY do so:
• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don’t understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, “tax bill�
FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences. The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.
Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them. The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we’re killing ourselves!
Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.
(Paraphrased from http://snipr.com/mastroflatvsfair )