Replies to Special Guest Article
| Our special guest article by author Ed McCaffery (click here for Part One and Part Two) drew a number of responses from Progress Report readers. Below, McCaffery answers those readers. (The readers' original responses are reprinted at the foot of this page.) |
A Letter From Special Guest Ed McCaffery
A few responses to specific letters:
It is indeed wise to remember that Gore got more votes, and probably should have won Florida as well, were justice done. But a question still remains as to why the election was even close. The economy was doing well, Gore's boss had defeated Bush's dad, Gore had a better, more popular position on most issues (abortion rights, social security, education). My main point is that Bush beat Gore on tax, and that this is unfortunate -- Democrats have not articulated a coherent, attractive, progressive tax policy. Liberals need a tax policy, and tax policy needs liberals.
In this spirit, I would be thrilled if the Progressive Party adopted all or any of my suggested reforms. I care about economic justice, not party affiliation.
I agree that if Republicans moderated their stance on other issues, they would be an even more formidable party on the national level. Of course, this wouldn't be a wholly bad thing -- the moderation itself might be good. But a very serious problem, to my mind's eye, is that the Republican advantage on tax policy translates into cover for doing more conservative things elsewhere: a pattern we saw under Reagan, recurring under Bush II. Money matters. Get the money issues right, and the American people seem remarkably patient (indifferent?) with other issues.
Ultimately, government spending is indeed part of the picture, and all spending has to get paid for, somewhere or another. Much of taxes involve transfers -- social security and so forth -- but we can think of this as spending, too. I, personally, don't see all taxation, or all government spending, as either larcenous or bad (the libertarian Robert Nozick did say that taxation was theft, like forced slavery, but I'm not a libertarian); I think there's a role for the government to provide public goods and do some redistribution of wealth. But there are of course lots of arguments to be had out. Once we've set a revenue need/spending level, however, there is the choice of how to meet it. It's here that my work is mainly concerned. I think that the way we tax -- level aside -- is horribly unfair, and getting worse. To whatever extent we do tax, I'd like to see us tax more fairly.
Several letters invoked support for a Henry George style "single tax" on land. I (like many economists and academics) think that there is indeed a role for property taxation, but I personally am skeptical that a single land tax can or should replace all U.S. taxes. I do, however, think that there are progressive alternatives.
I remain committed to the idea of a progressive spending tax. Rates would be higher than they are today. Capitalists and heirs would pay tax when and as they spend -- whereas they easily escape tax today. This is hardly letting the rich get away with anything; it's giving them a choice -- either save, and help out all through your contribution to our common capital stock, or pay a large toll to the government for the privilege of living a rich lifestyle. I detail all this, and answer many of the questions raised by your readers, in my forthcoming book, FAIR NOT FLAT: HOW TO MAKE OUR TAX SYSTEM BETTER AND SIMPLER. This should be out early next Spring, and I look forward to hearing from Progress Report readers about their thoughts on it.
Thanks for listening,
Ed McCaffery
And here are the original responses by Progress Report readers:
|
Replies to Ed McCaffery's Special Guest Article on Democrats, Republicans and Tax Policy Part One Part Two
Wednesday February 21, 2001
Within the context of the 16th amendment the best federal tax reform would be a huge tax on land based income. Lift all other income taxes and watch the stimulation!
Friday February 16, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part One) article: Some concerns: Gore got half a million more votes than Bush; in every other so-called democracy on this planet, that would have given Gore the victory. What would this article then say? But let's suppose Bush did gain many votes, and Gore lose many, due to tax policy. Is tax policy nothing more than who can offer the most, plainest, tax cuts? Maybe. Could the public understand and vote for a tax shift, from taxes on wages to taxes on pollution, for example? The public in Europe is smart enough to grasp that, so can't we too? Or is there no hope for a real tax shift unless it is marketed as simple tax cuts?
If McCaffery is right about Simple Tax Cuts being the key to elections, shouldn't this apply at the state and local levels?
But the states are falling all over themselves to raise racist sales taxes, and to levy new sales taxes against the Internet.
Wednesday February 14, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part One) article: His claim that Bush was more popular should at least be qualified since Gore did get more votes. I think he should have touched a little on the disconnect between thinking on taxing and spending. Offering tax cuts does not mean in the long run less taxes. Only spneding does that. Tax cuts in the presence of a large debt, is just larceny against the next generation. His essay is to suggest that Bush had the sexier theft plan. --Jonathan Hall jhall@cwes.com Wednesday February 21, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part Two) article: Democrats will never offer their own tax policy. There's no way to raise the issue of which taxes are better or worse because this would bring about discussion of property tax since it's the best tax for the poor, but the largest percentage of campaig n contributions by far (to either party) come from real estate companies, property owners, bankers, natural resource extraction corporations and insurance companies (which own lots and lots of real estate). Maintaining the land ownership pyramid scheme is the whole purpose of the left-right political paradigm. How do you think monarchs and aristocrats became monarchs and aristocrats in the first place? By acquiring and maintaining possession of the land. Democrats and Republicans both want to keep the iss ue of taxation a question of how much to tax, not what to tax. Only the Greens (and only in some countries) are proposing the shift of taxation from workers to landowners. --Adam Jon Monroe AdamJonMonroe@aol.com Wednesday February 21, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part Two) article: Hey Mr. McCaffery, what would you say if the Green Party took all five of your ideas and declared that to be their new tax policy? Don't the Greens have a better chance of embracing these ideas than the Democrats? Democrats seem to think they're only allowed to react to whatever Republicans propose, and only to disagree. No other options. --Tom Ambridge tamb@omnibus.net Sunday February 18, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part One) article: Seems there might be a flip side to all this. If the Republicans were to stick to their tax policy and move even slightly back to the center on other matters, would they have a lock on the next several elections? --Warren Faulk persimmon_1@yahoo.com Friday February 16, 2001 Concerning the McCaffery on How Bush/Gore Handled or Mishandled Tax Policy (Part One) article: The left-right political paradigm is just a good cop-bad cop scheme to prevent public awareness of what's really going -- some people own the land and everyone else has to pay them for the right to live on the planet Earth. If people were allowed equa l access to land, everyone would be able to do whatever they want with their lives. --Adam Jon Monroe AdamJonMonroe@aol.com
|
EDWARD J.. McCAFFERY is the Maurice Jones Jr. Professor of Law at USC Law School and a Professor of Law and Economics at the California Institute of Technology. His first book, TAXING WOMEN (U. Chicago Press, 1997 and 1999 (paper)) was selected as THE PROGRESS REPORT'S Book of the Year for 1997. His second book, FAIR NOT FLAT: A SIMPLER AND FAIRER TAX SYSTEM, will be published in 2002 by U. Chicago Press.
What is your opinion on tax policy options for America, and who will lead us best in the right direction? Tell The Progress Report:
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
