Laurence M. Vance Archive

Be Happy for Tax Deductions

October 14, 2009 5:17 PM by Laurence M. Vance

NPR had a story today about a bill introduced by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan. The Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act (HAPPY Act) would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $3,500 a year for pet care expenses. It turns out that the bill (H.R. 3501) was actually introduced on July 31.

Although this is another example of Congress doing something ridiculous, it is actually a good thing. We should be happy for any and all tax deductions, credits, and loopholes in the tax code. Since about half of Americans have a pet, this deduction actually benefits a large percentage of the population. Now we just need a deduction for auto repair expenses, food expenses, utility expenses, etc.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (13)

The Drugs of John Gray

October 6, 2009 7:52 AM by Laurence M. Vance

People from all across the political spectrum are now, more than ever, calling for some degree of drug decriminalization or legalization. There are lots of reasons for legalization but only one really great one. FULL ARTICLE

Bookmark/Share | Comments (44)

Boortz vs. Kotlikoff on the FairTax

April 11, 2009 6:22 PM by Laurence M. Vance

In all of Neal Boortz's books on the FairTax (see my recent article "The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair"), he maintains that, in order to be "revenue-neutral," the rate would have to be 23% (figured inclusively--the tax is included in the price of the product), which is actually 30% (figured exclusively; that is, normally--the tax is added to the price of the product). Yet, FairTax proponent Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University, in a 2006 article I was just made aware of called "Is the United States Bankrupt?" (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July/August 2006, 88[4], pp. 235-49), says the rate needs to be 25% (inclusive) or 33% (exclusive).

So which is it? And yes, it really matters. Since the FairTax would be paid on the purchase of goods like a new car and on services like heart surgery, the extra 2% could amount to a great deal of money.

But as I have shown in my articles on the FairTax, even the 25/33% rate would be too low. With a federal budget approaching $4 trillion, we need low tax rates ("Low rates are good tax policy"--Neal Boortz) more than we need fair tax rates. Anyone for the LowTax?

Bookmark/Share | Comments (27)

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair
2009.04.03 | Comments (137)

Richman's Law
2009.03.30 | Comments (12)

The Elements of Political Economy
2009.03.03 | Comments (1)

More States Increasing Minimum Wage
2009.02.13 | Comments (16)

And You Thought Krugman Was Bad
2009.01.14 | Comments (13)

Does Capitalism Need Adjustment?
2009.01.13 | Comments (18)

The Flat Tax Is Still Not Flat
2008.10.25 | Comments (16)

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat
2008.10.07 | Comments (9)

The True Nature of Patents
2008.09.25 | Comments (1)

Pelosi Uses the "I" Word
2008.09.25 | Comments (7)

FairTax Folly: A Real-World Example
2008.09.14 | Comments (30)