Jewish World Review Sept. 15, 2004 / 29 Elul, 5764
Second Bush term could bring radical tax change
The president sworn in early next year will push for major tax legislation. George W. Bush would make permanent his across-the-board tax cuts, while John Kerry would carve in stone only those cuts for households with incomes up to $200,000. Those making more would be taxed at higher rates.
That is a major difference between the two candidates, but not the biggest one. Mr. Kerry's tax proposals assume that the current tax system notwithstanding its infuriating complexity (the Internal Revenue Service says the "short" income tax form now takes more than 11 hours to prepare) is basically OK. Mr. Bush is willing to consider major, even radical, change. He's called for a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth system," and he will appoint a bipartisan commission to study how those goals might be achieved.
The White House handout on the topic ends with this sentence: "The panel will be asked to present revenue-neutral reform options to the secretary of the treasury, at least one of which should be reform of the current individual income tax system." The panel won't be doing its job if it fails to build on Mr. Bush's tax cuts and suggest a flat-rate consumption tax.
A consumption tax falls on what you spend, not on what you save or invest. Such a tax is manifestly pro-growth, since it encourages saving and investment, and thus greater production. A flat-rate consumption tax also would create greater incentives for individuals to work and produce. It also would be the simplest.
Since Mr. Bush took office, not only have rates on income for all individuals been reduced, but so have the rates on capital gains and dividends. And the estate tax, which is levied on a lifetime of savings, is being phased out. These changes take the first steps toward a flat-rate consumption tax.
To reach that destination, it wouldn't be necessary to scrap the current system. The imperative instead would be to finish the job of eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest. The personal income tax we so admire on April 15 would thus mutate into a consumption tax.
As the economist Bruce Bartlett explains in Commentary magazine, "There are only two things that can be done with income: It must be either saved or consumed. Absent a tax on saving or investment, the full burden of taxation must logically fall on consumption."
As for what the "revenue-neutral" flat rate might be for a consumption tax, consider that the lower the rate, the broader the tax base must be. And its breadth will depend on the extent to which the many loopholes that now complicate the current system some of which, alas, came from the Bush tax cuts can be closed.
The most hopeful, not to mention naive, flat-taxers say the rate could be 18 percent or 19 percent. That would exclude the first $10,000 to $15,000 of income from taxation. Yet if, in pursuit of fairness, the goal is to protect poorer citizens from paying higher taxes than they currently do, the amount excluded might have to rise by an additional $5,000 to $10,000. That means the flat rate would rise some, too.
The Bush commission doubtless will review other ideas, among them a national sales tax (beware of winding up with that tax plus the current income tax!) and a value-added tax (used widely in Europe). But surely it will present a flat-rate consumption tax.
The Kerry campaign dismisses the commission as an election-year gimmick. That fails to recognize the Bush administration's long interest in shifting taxes toward consumption. If the president is re-elected, watch this commission: It could help initiate a momentous and welcome change in the federal tax code.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.
08/30/04: To appeal to conservatives, add some nuance to compassion
07/28/04: How many more 'adverse' court decisions will it take before the case for an amendment to protect traditional marriage becomes compelling?
07/15/04: Edwards wasn't chosen just for his hair
06/23/04: Special counsel law: Reform gone awry
06/14/04: Reagan's influence is apparent in federal judiciary
05/25/04: What do Bush's sagging approval ratings really mean for November?
05/17/04: We must make distinctions between Berg, Abu Ghraib
05/11/04: College costs rise with students' expectations
04/30/04: A country's declining birthrate into oblivion
04/26/04: Dems escalate the judicial war
04/09/04: Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less
© 2004, Terry Eastland