If true, here's a non-war reason to hope for a Bush reelection. Reagan could never do this, but he never had a Republican congress.

I should add that people are paying far too much attention to polls, including the approval ratings and "right-track/wrong-track" polls. It's way too early for them to have any significance whatsoever. The campaign hasn't even started yet, and it won't really kick in until after the Republican convention, and not really until after Labor Day.

At this point in 1988, Dukakis was several points ahead of the president's father, and stayed there through August. He barely got over a hundred electoral votes.

I don't think this race is going to be close--certainly not as close as 2000 (if for no other reason than regression to the mean). It's very unlikely that we'd have two elections so close consecutively.

I in fact think that it will be a landslide, one way or the other (and my money's on Bush, or would be if I participated in the Iowa electronic futures market, which currently agrees with me).

I just hope he comes out in favor of a national retail sales tax (and not a VAT the way that article suggests). IMHO nothing really works unless it gets rid of the 16th Ammendment.

Sales taxes are regressive (hit the poor harder than the rich...as do VATs). I wouldn't object to a flat income tax rate, especially if it came with one, and only one, deduction. First $30K of annual income is tax free. Taxes are to be paid only on monies earned beyond that amount (earn $40K, pay tax on $10K).

Easy math, the poor don't get screwed, and there needn't be any loopholes. Oh, and no joint filing.

As for amendments that need to go away, I'll worry about the 17th before the 16th.

Jason, the flat tax proposals I commonly hear about exclude incomes under $20-30K from ANY tax. And I also have seen sales tax plans that exclude such things as food and rent specifically to make it fairer for the poor. Either one is vastly superior to what we have now.

The Fair Tax handles the regressiveness by providing a rebate for every household to cover the 23% consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. So while it might be regressive, it isn't for those where that actually means something.

The flat tax still needs a national agency to collect it and has no way of getting rid of the IRS or for making sure exceptions don't sneak back in. A retail sales tax is collected by states through their existing (for most) sales tax collection mechanism and passed directly to the federal government. The federal government is out of the tax collection business entirely.

If I really believed he'd succeed in reforming the tax code I'd likely vote for Bush. As is, big ideas are good for winning elections, but I doubt Bush's commitment and ability to deliver.

Another point - on the consumption tax - a rebate is a very bad idea. The genuinely poor need their money now, not after filling out some tax forms and waiting until they are processed. Adding paperwork to the very poor isn't going to help them, and moving their income around in time is just going to make their lives worse. For a consumption tax exemption to avoid screwing the poor it needs to be made available right at the point of sale.

I prefer a flat tax (with suitable adjustments to the way dividends are handled, which is a whole 'nother story), but if a way could be found to do a consumption tax without screwing the poor, I'd be all for that.

Andrew, maybe a sales tax that applies only to goods and services that cost $50 (arbitrary number) or more? Most food items don't cost that much, and so would be tax exempt. I agree that rebates are a bad idea.

Jason- I have no idea how to handle details, but there has to be some simple way to ensure that there isn't an unreasonable burden placed on people at the bottom of the economic ladder. Simply exempting food, medical care, housing costs and clothing would be one possibility. It's a little hard to see how to avoid obvious idiocies like charging for lumber used to build a home but not for a finished home.

I'd much prefer a flat income tax (with some fixed amount exempted), along with some adjustments to how corporate dividends and taxes are handled, but that's because I take a fringe view of the relationship between citizen and state, at least for a libertarian.

Looking at the link Michael provided, there's a clarification of the rebate idea which addresses my objection to some extent. Direct link here.

This means harried single moms don't actually have to keep track of all their receipts and then file a form, which was my initial impression. In practice, everyone gets a little check which is calculated by the IRS to cover the amount of taxes that a person living at the poverty level would have spent on essential goods and services. On the one hand the burden of paperwork is lifted, but on the other there's a federal bureaucrat deciding what constitutes reasonable spending on essential goods and services, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I think the consumption tax idea can be made to work, but the rebate thing needs a little tweaking, at least to take into account regional variations in the cost of necessities. This idea at least has some momentum behind it, so might as well support it since I'm unlikely to be crowned emperor any time soon :-)

Check out the site. It's got some good ideas, even if you dislike consumption taxes in general.

I was more suprised by the Domino Delivery story below the Tax story....What is King Abdullah of Jordan doing scarfing down on Pork Sausage Pizza's??? What's a Muslim to do? jjs

Good design!
[url=http://bkitqqff.com/asqo/iybx.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://wttizjbb.com/lbwk/xrnp.html]Cool site[/url]

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Good design!
http://bkitqqff.com/asqo/iybx.html | http://urrnmpvc.com/wmjx/xgqt.html