More than a decade after publisher Steve Forbes’s flat-tax platform temporarily vaulted him to the top of the pack of GOP presidential candidates, another prospective Republican presidential candidate is making tax simplification a centerpiece of his 2008 campaign. In announcing his exploratory committee, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback argued “We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have,” today’s Wichita Eagle reported.
But unlike back in 1996, the media are now confronted with the evidence that the flat tax help boost wealth-producing economic growth. This week’s "Time" reports on the economic boom in the former Soviet republic of Estonia, which like many Eastern European countries has seen its fortunes rise since dumping socialism and instituting a flat tax. “The economy is now one of Europe’s most dynamic, racing along at an 11.3% growth clip,” Peter Gumbel writes this week in his “Letter from Estonia.”
Nearly eleven years ago, "Time" took dead aim at Forbes’s flat tax in a January 29, 1996 cover package, “Does the Flat Tax Make Any Sense,” an issue which hit mailboxes right before the New Hampshire primary.
Senior Editor Nancy Gibbs perfectly echoed the liberal establishment’s disdain for both the flat tax and conservative economic theories. “The heart of his [Steve Forbes’s] fiscal crusade is his flat tax, a plan derided as ‘deja voodoo’ by economists who blame Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts for the explosion of the national debt. He has captured perfectly the fury Americans feel for a system they think treats them like suckers while the rich enjoy a secret tax code written just for them — not withstanding his flat tax could favor the rich even more effectively.”
“The scheme Forbes is pushing in his television ads looks as if it would either swell the federal deficit or raise taxes on middle Americans while bestowing extra riches on the rich,” echoed "Time" writer Dan Goodgame in a second piece headlined, “Is This Flat Tax Unfair?"
Fast forward to this week’s "Time," which reported on the innovative and booming Estonian economy, without mentioning that U.S. taxpayers have to deal with a much more cumbersome system with far higher top rates. In fact, the biggest problem in Estonia seems to be an unemployment rate so low, the country is worried about a labor shortage. An excerpt of Gumbel’s letter:
Since regaining independence in 1991 with the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Estonia (pop. 1.35 million) was the first former Soviet republic to introduce its own currency and adopt a flat-tax system, now widely copied in the rest of Eastern Europe. It has also become one of the most technologically advanced places on the planet. You can use your mobile phone to pay for parking, buy bus tickets or check your children's school schedule. Wi-fi hot spots are ubiquitous, and the nation's most famous start-up is Skype, the Internet phone titan, which eBay acquired for $2.6 billion. That's slightly more than the annual output of the entire Estonian economy 15 years ago.The economy is now one of Europe's most dynamic, racing along at an 11.3% growth clip. Estonia is the only new European Union member to have a budget surplus, and its national debt is shrinking rapidly. Naturally, there are growing pains: the unemployment rate has fallen so sharply, from 14% in 2000 to about 4% today, that businesses are scrambling to find workers. "This is the best time in our history," says Sten Tamkivi, Skype's Estonian operations manager....
Most Estonians, enjoying a boost in living standards, are hoping the boom can continue. But there's at least one caveat: Estonia needs to resolve its labor shortage. "We are running out of people," says Craig Rawlings, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Tallinn. Still, Estonia has shown that it can improvise. "We're a very small country," says Skype's Tamkivi. "That means we just have to be efficient." So far, they've managed.
The question is, if Brownback's candidacy takes off, will "Time" remember its own reporting on Eastern Europe's flat tax boom? Or will they once again go after the flat tax as a threat to liberals big government priorities?
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Evidently, prior to this late
January 15, 2007 - 16:03 ET by TEEvidently, prior to this latest issue, Time forgot to check with former CBS "News" kook Eric Engberg to ask him about his opinion on the flat tax.
Tell this to the Globe's Carr
January 15, 2007 - 16:12 ET by EdhenryTell this to the Globe's Carroll. And does anyone remember Bryant Gumbel embarassing himself on the Today Show when this was brought up in the 90s? He could not get the flat tax concept.
It's too simple, encourages growth, good for US and takes power from Congress = Dems won't like it.
Hey, Rich, wasn't Estonia the Groucho Movie?
January 15, 2007 - 16:09 ET by acaiguanaHey, Rich, wasn't Estonia the Groucho Movie?
Oops, sorry, that was Fredonia.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Estonia (and Latvia & L
January 15, 2007 - 16:47 ET by sarcasmoEstonia (and Latvia & Lithuania) are models of what could happen in Cuba post-Castro in the unlikely event the US government butts-out and lets Miami Cubans go there when Castro finally-croaks (stopping all work in Miami for at least 3 days -- mark my words)...
JMR
Ahhhh yes....Rufas T. Firefly
January 16, 2007 - 08:37 ET by AlgerHissAhhhh yes....Rufas T. Firefly and Mrs. Teasdale! That's when movies were really funny.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
On the flat tax
January 15, 2007 - 20:03 ET by UnsaneWow! Simple taxation is beneficial, brings in more revenue, and is a hit in Eastern Europe?
(Well, I didn't need the U.S. media to tell me that. I've been reading that in The Economist for years. Most embarrassingly of all, Russia even uses a flat tax.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Geez, Uns,I've been waiting f
January 15, 2007 - 20:17 ET by BlondeGeez, Uns,
I've been waiting for you to kick in on this topic!
Any delays on this topic are
January 15, 2007 - 20:28 ET by UnsaneAny delays on this topic are being caused by the horrifying possibility that temps may plunge below 32 in San Antonio (with rare freezing precip), which is a sign of the Apocalypse!
The flat tax issue was exactly why I voted for Steve Forbes in 1996. I would have in the 2000 primaries as well, but I got so sick of hearing the media gush over McCain I decided I didn't want to take any chances, so I voted for W.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Um, Uns.....Would you care to
January 15, 2007 - 21:57 ET by BlondeUm, Uns.....
Would you care to argue that the flat tax must be only seventeen percent?
Geez....guy....
If you'd just admit it....
You'd quit wasting all of your time arguing with Sarc over the um, "tax & spend drug war".
I can't believe you haven't put your big fat air force clod hoppers all over this thread....are you getting shy in your old age, or what?
Color me confused (don't you dare make a blonde joke out of that!)....I just figured you'd have a bit more to add, here.
Are you putting in a request?
January 15, 2007 - 22:56 ET by UnsaneAre you putting in a request?
OK, here goes...
Following the sage plan offered by Steve Forbes (again, I voted for him in 1996, me being the evil, obsidian-hearted fiscal conservative that I am), I say we hit every single taxpayer in the country, regardless of income, at 17% of income, with absolutely positively no exemptions. In fact, just to make it so the Congresscritters can't easily do their tinkering, social experimentation, and confiscating, I'd amend the 16th Amendment to set the taxation rate at 17% across the board with no exemptions. Well...OK, Mr. Forbes DID have but one exemption: $500 for each child. I would make that a grand. Kids are expensive. I should know. I was one.
Another difference was that he only wanted to hit incomes above $36,000. I would hit every American regardless of income, for it you spread out the pain throughout the maximum number of people, it makes the burden easier.
You do this, and gradually privatize Social Security over time, and you should see this economy fly. Taxation should be used strictly for raising money for government operations; NOT as a mechanism to steal from the successful as it currently is. What is fair about the top 40% of income earners paying 99.94% of taxes?
(Is that better, Blonde? Or do you need me to give you a further "blonde-proof" explanation? ;^) )
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Yes, Uns...I require a furthe
January 15, 2007 - 23:04 ET by BlondeYes, Uns...I require a further "Blonde proof" proof...
Why exempt anyone at all?
Why exempt any income level?
If it's a flat tax.....why shouldn't it be totally fair, and totally flat?
Just wondering.....
Why, no one should be exempt
January 15, 2007 - 23:10 ET by UnsaneWhy, no one should be exempt because if everyone pays in, the government will generate more revenue! (Gasp!) Besides, taxation is there as a necessary evil for paying for another necessary evil (government). It is not there to be used as a mechanism to steal from some to give to others.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
No, No, No, No...Unsane.You a
January 15, 2007 - 23:16 ET by BlondeNo, No, No, No...Unsane.
You are supposed to argue for the "exemptions" to the flat tax.
How freakin' obtuse can you be?
It's your baby.....defend it, dude.
I would, except now I don't t
January 15, 2007 - 23:19 ET by UnsaneI would, except now I don't think I am following you. Are you talking about how people will predictably whine "What about my mortgage exemption?" "What about those evil rich bastards, they're gonna keep their exemptions? (They won't if I have my way but it won't stop the shortsighted from whining)" etc. ?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Uns....Real life 101....What
January 15, 2007 - 23:22 ET by BlondeUns....
Real life 101....
What are the logical arguments against the real and true flat tax?
Washington pols, being what they must be....must have exemptions.
So my question is.....how do you defend/advocate for them?
In a flat tax world?
The #1 reason...Why have exem
January 15, 2007 - 23:33 ET by UnsaneThe #1 reason...
Why have exemptions when you can have MORE MONEY in your pocket to begin with?
#2: Why have our behavior dictated by a tax code?
#3: The exemptions make our lives more complicated. Why the hell is anyone spending 12-15 hours trying to figure out what they owe the government?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Why have our behaviour dictat
January 15, 2007 - 23:37 ET by BlondeWhy have our behaviour dictated by the tax code?
Hmmm.....
Don't we all do that now? I know I do....
So, it's up to you to argue why the flat tax (with or without exemptions) would be preferable.
Having a true flat tax with
January 15, 2007 - 23:58 ET by Conservative VoiceHaving a true flat tax with no exceptions would be the most fair. Everyone pays the same %.
Having a true flat tax would simplify the tax code, (we spend so much time and energy with accountants and tax lawyers, collecting, etc. ) that we can use toward a more productive economy.
Having a flat tax (and removing all taxes on wealth...ie estate tax and taxing earnings from trades) would increase America's wealth, because people would increase their savings. You wouldn't need Social Security. More wealth will equate to more freedom.
It is capitalism at its finest. Hence resources will be allowed to seek the path that creates the greatest benefit for all. It strikes the very heart of socialism.
Bringing in a Christian argument, God requires 10% from all, does the government hold itself to be greater than God?
Don't you know that the aim o
January 16, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneDon't you know that the aim of the Left is to replace God with The Almighty Nanny State? :-)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
As a small business owner, th
January 15, 2007 - 23:42 ET by dmntd1As a small business owner, the ability to have deductions (12-15hours? try 2-5 days...) is what keeps my business afloat, and would still if the flat tax was enacted. To pay 18% on revenue (in a service industry, no real 'product') would cause me to have to up my prices. Dramatically up my prices. Most of my revenue (almost half) goes to vehicle expenses. And to think the Dems are going to let the big bad oil co's to bail out of their "windfall profit taxes".... well, Keep dreaming Alice. You'll make it to wonderland one of these days!
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
Why do I need to pay for your
January 16, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Conservative VoiceWhy do I need to pay for your gas? If everyone paid the same % then that would be fair...it is unfair that the rich have to pay 40% and others pay nothing, and by the same token it is unfair to require me by force to pay for your exemptions. You also forget that having a simplier code, you wouldn't need to spend so much time coming up with exemptions but concentrate on your business. Hence you will be a more effective business owner.
Well my taxes would go up wit
January 15, 2007 - 23:44 ET by Conservative VoiceWell my taxes would go up with a flat tax, but I am still for it, as it is the right thing to do. I do think that the government should learn to deal with 10%. I hate the fact that people are trying to approach this as what spot can we collect to maintain current budgets if everything was flat and there weren't excemptions. We should approach it from the stand point what is right and fair. 10% is plenty for the government to budget on, sure it means they need to cut some programs but thats the point.
I agree witht the government
January 16, 2007 - 15:43 ET by UnsaneI agree witht the government being forced to do without for a change, but in order for that to happen, I would have to demand a balanced budget amendment. You see, the government will just borrow if they can't have the revenue. You shut off that escape route, and restrict the government to fewer funds (and have an electorate that makes it clear they will not tolerate tax hikes), then you will see the goverment dealing with finances in a more adult manner.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Actually Unsane--Forbe's plan
January 16, 2007 - 08:07 ET by ncstevemActually Unsane--Forbe's plan had two exemptions---$13,000 each for husband/wife and $5000 (not $500) for each child.
I was very upset that people
January 15, 2007 - 22:18 ET by Conservative VoiceI was very upset that people fell for the media's propaganda that Forbes is just buying the election...and yet were mum with Kerry who puts Forbes in the poor house due to Big Tomato money. He may look a little goofy, but he is honest and right!
The only thing I disagree with is not taxing the poor, a fair tax is when everyone pays the same percent.
CV,I've been thinking about t
January 15, 2007 - 22:35 ET by BlondeCV,
I've been thinking about this for a while.
Steve Forbes is kind of goofy looking. But the longer I think about it...J. F'ing Kerry is even more clownish.
(I'm sorry...I admire Steve Forbes so much...but he just has an unelectable face).
So where does that leave stick man? Besides stirring the ketchup?
If anything, Steve Forbes loo
January 15, 2007 - 22:59 ET by UnsaneIf anything, Steve Forbes looks like an economics professor more than anything else.
Other than that, lay off my man Steve! At least he had the guts to raise a lot of hell about this idea. (I'm still pissed off at Tim "I'm a registered independent!!!" Russert for his treatment of Forbes on Meet The Depressed.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
OK...Uns...chase my other pos
January 15, 2007 - 23:05 ET by BlondeOK...Uns...chase my other post (above). Danke.
I am a big supporter of the f
January 15, 2007 - 21:26 ET by GalvanicI am a big supporter of the flat tax. No exemptions; no deductions. Set the rate at what is determined to work --- let's say 18% for the sake of example --- with no taxes on the first $35,000 dollars of earnings.
It's democratic, and it's fair. . . .
It's too simple, encourages growth, good for US and takes power from Congress = Dems won't like it.
. . . and that's why we won't see it. And it's not just Dems -- it's Reps too. The power to favor some while punishing others with our ridiculous Federal tax code is the very ROOT of political power in the Congress. The current tax policy is the reason for the tens of thousands of registered lobbyists, each one trying to get a tax break for the special interest he.she represents.
And let's not forget the tax industry ---- tax accountants, tax attorneys, and companies like H&R Block. They have a vested interest in maintaining a complex tax code that intimidates average citizens. Think of how many of them would lose their jobs if you could file your income tax return on a form the size of a 3x5 post card.
I don't know about exempting
January 15, 2007 - 23:22 ET by UnsaneI don't know about exempting the $35K and under crowd. I would tax every income at 18%. In order for there to be fewer poor people, we should be making it as uncomfortable as possible. Why exempt anyone from taxation?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I think an exemption based on
January 15, 2007 - 23:36 ET by dmntd1I think an exemption based on, say, half the national average salary based on the IRS numbers, re-figured every ten years (Gotta give the IRS SOMETHING to do...)
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
Well, you'd still need an IRS
January 15, 2007 - 23:50 ET by UnsaneWell, you'd still need an IRS anyways. It would just be a lot smaller. And much less intimidating (if you can't pay your taxes under a flat tax regime, it's not because you are making a mistake, it's because you are truly unwilling or lazy).
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Exempting a class of people from income taxes is wrong.
January 16, 2007 - 07:02 ET by acaiguanaExempting a class of people from income taxes is wrong.
I don't care if they make $1 a year. Some percentage, for argument let's say 10 cents (10% for Rio Linda). If they make $2 they get 90 cents more.
What a beautiful concept. They pay for their government too. Maybe that will make them realize there is no free lunch. And the problem is we have a number of people in the USA who get a free lunch. The concept of using tax policy to modify behavior (houses, energy program, etc) is wrong. With the flat tax, one pays and one goes.
For example, what incentive would a person have in a 'progressive' tax system to make another dollar if the tax was 90%? Not much.
And what incentive would a person have making $1 million a year to make $1 million plus $1 dollar with a flat tax of 10%? The same incentive one would have to turn $1 dollar a year into $2 a year.
So, what do you do when you have too much money? Invest it. In what? Well, in the dot-com era, just about any loony scheme one comes up with. In the Democrat 'progressive' era, just about anything that doesn't entail a risk.
So, that is pretty much the story. Of course, the people who make their living off the tax system itself, well, dislocations happen.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Forget the flat tax, as I con
January 16, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Dave RForget the flat tax, as I consider it only a half measure at best. The Fair Tax is the way to go, as it accomplishes two things:
1) Total elimination of the IRS-a worthy goal if there ever was one.
2) It gives you, the individual, complete control over whether or not you pay the tax based solely on your purchasing decisions.
If anyone is interested in the differences in the two plans or just more information in general you can find it here.
The "Fair Tax" isn'
January 16, 2007 - 15:38 ET by UnsaneThe "Fair Tax" isn't; sales taxes disproportionally hit the poorest Americans. (so much for me being a shill for the rich only, huh?) Not to mention that it is an attack on C (of C+I+G+X-M) and normally advocated by those who think the savings rate is too low.
First off, allow me to shoot down one myth: the elimination of the IRS. Regardless of whichever path is taken, you are going to need an IRS. You will need a bureaucracy to collect the taxes and ensure they are being collected. I would wager that it would even have to expand and even be more vicious and nasty under a national sales tax regime. Have you ever seen what happens to a store in your neighborhood whenever the state isn't getting its sales tax money? They go in and shut the place down, impounding everything in the store. Imagine the federal authorities doing that all over the country. And yes, that kind of enforcement will indeed be necessary.
If you STILL believe the IRS will be eliminated, allow me to ask you this: how would tax collection be enforced? Law without force is impotent, as Pascal once said.
Point 2 is proof positive that this tax is advocated by those who are deeply concerned over the savings rate. Additionally, advocates of this "fair tax" whine to me all the time that it isn't a VAT. Unfortunately, it will in the end behave like one. Think about it: if you run a small business...say, an auto repair shop...you charge whatever the national sales tax is to the customer. But then you have to factor all the things you buy to run your business (PC, paper, office supplies, tools, replacement parts for the shop, machinery, etc.) - you are a customer at some point paying a national sales tax yourself at some point - and you simply are not going to "eat" all those expenses out of the kindness of your heart. You, being a wise businessman knowing there is no such thing as a free lunch - will pass on all of those expenses to the consumer who is there to get his car fixed. Hence this "fair tax" will act exactly as a VAT, without it being CALLED a VAT.
Finally, the most important point is this, and shockingly, I caught Dr. Walt Williams on a GOOD day when he focused on the issues and topics he knows best on the Limbaugh program. He cautioned his audience to remember one thing: you HAVE to repeal the 16th Amendment BEFORE you get a national sales tax passed.
But all in all, for the reasons outlined above, I am opposed to the idea of a national sales tax.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)