1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Mises Economics Blog

The Flat Tax: Too Little Too Soon.

April 15, 2008 8:10 AM by D.W. MacKenzie (Archive)

Mid April is always depressing time of year. The ski season is ending, spring colors have not yet arrived, the pollen count is rising, and above all we must all now "celebrate" Tax Day. Tax day is a miserable time for two reasons: we are made more aware of our tax burden and we come to face the compliance costs of the Income Tax. While it is the case that life has some necessary inconveniences, we should consider how much of our grief on tax day is unavoidable.

Federal taxation will exist so long as there is a Federal government, obviously. There are some proposals to make the Federal Income Tax less onerous. The best-known proposal for reforming the Federal Income Tax is the Forbes Plan. Steve Forbes has proposed a flat and simple tax of seventeen percent. There are several problems with the Forbes proposal.

First, it is not a flat tax in the strict sense, it is a flatter tax. As such, the Forbes tax does not square well with the idea of equality before the law, particularly equality before tax law. Second, the Forbes tax retains unnecessary complexity. The Forbes tax does contain exemptions, albeit fewer than currently exist. Special interest groups will always lobby for more exemptions, and Forbes allows them too much latitude. Third, the Forbes Tax is too high. There is no need for the Federal Government to extract 17% of income from Americans, especially in peacetime. The Forbes's most recent book came out during wartime, but his proposal predate our current situation, and would also apply to American's post Iraq war years.

Forbes type proposals are meant as practical compromises that can pass in the current political climate. Such a compromise reform had some political momentum in the mid 1990's. While there remains some political support for Forbes type of tax, and his plan would be an improvement on the status quo, any effort to pass the Forbes tax is largely in futility. Federal spending is the root cause of our problems with the tax code. So long as Federal spending is at its current and rising levels, the chances for real reform are nonexistent.

Federal spending has exploded during the Bush Administration. While a simpler and flatter tax code would be less onerous, taxes will remain far too high until Federal spending is slashed. Since both major political parties are behind increased Federal spending the political situation does not allow for real tax reform. What we need to do then is to alter the political climate.

If the Forbes Tax were to pass now, it would do so at best in its present weak form, or at worst in a form that differs little from our current tax code. Why waste effort on such marginal reforms? More radical tax reform will require a shift in public opinion. People like Forbes should therefore dispense with advocating watered down compromise plans, and focus on shifting public opinion towards more radical and ideal reforms.

The bad news here is that this will not be the last tax day that Americans endure, at least not in the short run. The good news is that those who value economic efficiency and justice can win over public opinion, given time. We can win this fight because the facts are on our side. The tax code is needlessly complex and high, and Federal spending entails much waste and should be slashed. The Forbes tax offers too little reform, too soon. Let's wait for something better. Better still, let's push for radical reform.

(For more, see Rothbard's Case Against the Flat Tax)

Bookmark/Share | Comments (5)

Comments (5)

  • Kevin Hodgkins

    Jean-Baptiste colbert stated that the art of taxation is so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing. This article is spot-on. As long as expenditures remain high and unchanged all that can change on the revenue (taxing) side is to pluck feathers from a different part of the goose. As long as the total $ amount does not change it is only a question of where and from whom the revenue is extracted.

    Published: April 15, 2008 9:31 AM

  • Dennis

    "Federal spending is the root cause of our problems with the tax code. So long as Federal spending is at its current and rising levels, the chances for real reform are nonexistent."

    This is exactly the case. Until spending is significantly reduced, all attempts at real tax, and I will add monetary, reform will be largely window dressing.

    Published: April 15, 2008 9:43 AM

  • Ruth

    I agree on federal spending, as shown in pbs.org's Expose series. (too many to name, too many to find? I'm not sure) It takes Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporters to find just the abuses and follow the money, much less what it would take to honestly evaluate the government's spending. As each political side has different opinions on how to reach many of the same goals. Can you comment as to how the tax plan Mike Huckabee proposed differs in strength and weaknesses of the dissolution of the IRS and how would it effect the economy? As greed takes many forms, by taking away a form of power thru the IRS, what would this accomplish? Is it too little too late?

    Published: April 15, 2008 12:23 PM

  • Nat

    Did the so-called Expose series advocate the abolition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Do they ever even look at PBS/NPR? No? What a surprize.

    Published: April 15, 2008 1:53 PM

  • Van

    One of the concerns with Fair Tax is that it will slow consumer spending. A $1,000 television will jump to $1,300 (30%), with an added X% of state sales tax added to it. In addition, the protection plan for the television will jump from $299 to $388.70 (30%). A purchase which would have cost $1,299 + sales tax, will now cost 1688.70 + sales tax + the potentially 30% increase in cable to utilize the television. Consumer spending has as much do with comfort level, as it does real disposable income. Consumers will rethink purchases and even if they end up making the purchase, the rethinking will cause a slowdown in spending, which has its own set of problems. Not to mention the fact that the average consumer has around $6000 in debt. Add 30% to that as well, and we're up to $7800 of average consumer debt, with an increase in total paid interest over the life of the debt. Why? Because consumers will still use credit and buy what they really can not afford. Less spending by the government and less taxes period are the answer. A fundamental shift in national thinking is required.

    Published: April 16, 2008 8:06 PM

Post an intelligent and civil comment

(Please allow up to one minute for your comment to be processed.)