Are you saying you now believe all of these things? If not, which ones do you believe?

Some more questions:

Do you think "ridding the tax system of classes" will also rid it of complexity? Do you realize that the Code goes from section 1 to section 9833, and that establishing a flat rate wouldn't eliminate a single section?

Was it on Balloon Juice or Donklephant where you encountered folks who believe in a "centrally planned" economy? Do you agree that the state must "regulate and protect" in order for capitalism to work?

Do you think a "fairly large" centralized government is unnecessary?

Are you opposed to revenue-neutral tax reform? If so, do you think tax reform should drastically reduce revenue or drastically increase it?

Tractarian,

I believe that some form of progressivity will be necessary, but I want that to be in the breakdown of the exemption and the rate within a flat tax system. Most people won't look beyond different rates for different income levels, which I think is limited thinking. For evidence, see our current tax system. The rest of what I wrote, I believe the opposite.

I don't think ridding the tax system of classes inherently rids it of complexity, just that it's an essential component. Leaving a scrap of complexity leads to more complexity. I admit I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say with regard to sections 1 thru 9833. Why wouldn't it replace a single section? The idea of tax reform is to start over with the thinking. Tinkering with the current code won't help.

Donklephant was the more direct argument for centrally planned. However, I've heard that (and most of the other arguments) in many more places than just those two recent discussions. I didn't make that clear in my post. I should have. I do think the state must regulate and protect, to an extent. I argued as much in one of my responses at Donklephant. Paraphrasing that, business isn't perfect, but government shouldn't regulate in an attempt to lead. Self-regulation works. In the instances where it fails, that's where the state becomes necessary. We do not follow that model now.

Consider the FCC, since it's a straight-forward, recent example. Within the "indecency" debate, many seem to think that broadcast television will descend into nudity and porn the minute the FCC stops. It won't. Television networks are businesses, created to earn a profit, not to deliver specific content. If they deliver what their consumers don't want, the consumers will boycott the network and the advertisers. When the advertisers, who are interested in pleasing consumers, not angering them, decide that supporting a network isn't good for their business, they'll spend elsewhere. The content will then change at the network. This requires faith, but experience shows it to be true. Apply that to industries that cause actual harm rather than moral harm. If they won't prevent that, laws are necessary. I just see no reason to add a burden before it's needed (or where the harm is not significant and obvious.) Think federal flood insurance, a disastrous government program which supersedes capitalism.

A fairly large centralized government is unnecessary. Our country is a republic for a reason. Federalism works. The federal government has specific responsibilities, which pertain to a national scale. Defense is an obvious example. But much of what the federal government shoulders is inappropriate. There is no reason for the government to be in education, which is best left to state and local governments (if it must be run by government - I'm not convinced). There, management is much closer to the situation, and therefore more accountable to those represented. Isn't that the real point of our government? As I've written here before, if we don't believe in federalism any more, why not rename our country to the United State of America?

Which is why I don't like revenue-neutral tax reform. I believe it should reduce federal tax revenue because the federal government does more than what it should. However, I don't think tax reform is the best method to determine the optimal funding need. That's why government reform should be in the mix. Figure out what the federal government should do, then figure out how much it will cost, then figure out the best tax reform (flat tax rate and exemption level) to fund it. I understand that revenue-neutral may be necessary in the beginning because overhauling government is a huge task. Tax reform shouldn't wait. If we get tax reform with a revenue-neutral policy, it's a start. If we don't think it further than that from the beginning, we're rearranging the pie chart, as I said in the entry. Again, why bother?

I hope that answered your questions. Thanks for reading.

Oh, and I believe #10, except for the crossed-out sentence. That was a joke.

Thanks for the response. I happen to agree with you on almost everything.

I would argue that instituting a flat income tax rate would do nothing to simplify the tax system - as a tax attorney I can tell you that the graduated rates in subsections 1(a)-(e) represent one of the most simple and easy-to-follow schemes in the entire Code. Still, I am in favor of a much flatter rate structure - not on simplicity grounds but on fairness grounds. This includes the flattening (or elimination) of the regressive payroll tax.

I would also argue that anything other than revenue-neutral tax reform would be impossible - until spending can be reined in. I think the last few years have shown us that there really is no limit to the amount the government is willing to borrow to finance its endeavors. I, for one, do not believe that further tax cuts will generate enough growth to increase revenue. So I think the spending cuts must precede the tax cuts, not the other way around.

Tractarian,

"Still, I am in favor of a much flatter rate structure - not on simplicity grounds but on fairness grounds. This includes the flattening (or elimination) of the regressive payroll tax."

You hit exactly what I'm aiming for most, fairness. (As a self-employed taxpayer, I'll add a double "amen" to your payroll tax aspect.) The rest is mostly theory and intellectual entertainment, since I don't expect Congress or the president to do anything. The flat tax and everything wrapped around it is an framework to get the discussion moving. The old negotiation idea of ask for more than you expect to get what you want. If people would just understand fairness and implement it, I'd be thrilled, though.