Comments: 501c3s

Talk about an abused law. It's bad enough that all these execrable groups are tax free, it also puts the government in charge of deciding who's good and good not.

Steve Forbes was on Kudlow the other night calling for a flat tax of 17% with a family of four's first 45,000 being exempt. I was weeping as I thought of the economic explosion that would ignite in this country.

As Silence would say, only 535 reasons we won't do it...

Posted by jk at April 17, 2007 11:54 AM

Actually, Senator Arlen Specter (i'm not really a fan).... is introducing a 20% flat tax.

Posted by AlexC at April 17, 2007 5:50 PM

Okay, 534. Sadly, I cannot imagine the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania would vote for a Senatorial-power-reducing flat tax if it were poised to succeed.

Posted by jk at April 17, 2007 6:17 PM

As JG notes below, a flat, "percentage," tax is not a flat tax. Nor is it a fair tax. It is, I must admit, a big improvement on the current situation.

Why don't we have more proposals out there for consumption based taxation. Think how much the government could save by eliminating the IRS.

Posted by dagny at April 18, 2007 10:24 AM

Consumption based taxation is far and away my first choice, but I think that you need to repeal the 16th Amendment. lest you end up with a British-style hybrid.

Removing Congressional power and social engineering from the tax code is so daunting a challenge, I will take it in any form. Consumption tax is the best idea but the hardest to get. The appeal of Forbesís suggestion was that it is explainable, defensible (the exemption blunts regressivity concerns) and could be put in place by a single Congress that rode to power on the idea.

Posted by jk at April 18, 2007 12:11 PM