Library of Economics and Liberty masthead logo
 
Search EconLog
Recent Entries
Recent Entries by author
Bryan Caplan
David Henderson
Arnold Kling
Browse Archives
by date
by author
by category
Subscribe
About EconLog
Frequently Asked Questions
EconLog FAQ
Econlib Resources
About Econlib
Contact Econlib
Quote of the Day
Birthdays & Commemorations
Frequently Asked Questions
Get Econlib Newsletter
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)
RDF (Excerpts)
Feedburner (One-click subscriptions)
More
FAQ (Instructions and more options)
Return to top
Articles EconLog EconTalk Books Encyclopedia Guides Search

Alan Reynolds argues that many problems with tax systems go away if you use a single tax rate.


First, a single tax rate makes it much easier to integrate business and individual taxes. Income originating in business (and used to pay interest and dividends to investors) can be taxed at the business source, rather than distributed to individuals and taxed at different rates depending on what their annual salaries happen to be that year.

...a single tax rate is inherently more stable, not so tempting for politicians to change. Adding a "surtax" at higher incomes would be a conspicuous violation of the rule, as would adding additional tax brackets.


The latter point relates to an idea that I am concerned with--how to keep Congress committed to tax reform once it has been enacted.

For Discussion. Reynolds and others would favor very dramatic tax reform. Is there a case for incremental tax reform instead?

CATEGORIES: Tax Reform


COMMENTS (3 to date)
skh writes:

Incremental tax reform has contributed greatly to the 8 million+ pages of tax code now on the books. The politicos begin with (perhaps) good intentions, but the end result is a more convoluted system of loop holes and exemptions than ever. While that's good news for CPAs and tax lawyers, I believe that a broad overhaul of the tax system would be the only way to produce meaningful reform.

Posted November 18, 2004 10:45 AM
Lawrance George Lux writes:
Reynolds and others would favor very dramatic tax reform. Is there a case for incremental tax reform instead?

No. Congress has been trying to fix the Tax system since implementation of Income Tax, and look at the lobbying for tax advantage. The need is for a clear and simple, appliable Tax Code which Everyone will be opposed to amending. lgl

Posted November 18, 2004 12:22 PM
Joe Kristan writes:

In theory, there is of course no case for not having a perfect tax system, whatever that is. In reality, you need 60 votes in the Senate. If the incremental reform is an improvement over the existing system, and fundamental reform can't pass, then you fix what you can.

Pulling weeds improves your garden, even though you know weeds grow back.

Posted November 19, 2004 12:11 PM
Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top
Copyright © 2006-2009
Liberty Fund, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund logo, amagi symbol
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the earliest-known written appearance of the word "freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
spacer gif