Comments on: McCain, Thompson Refuse to Sign No New Tax Pledge

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:54:10 +0000

The problem with the pledge is that it is ambiguous if it would be or would not be a violation of the pledge. But ultimately, not signing the pledge is not an indication that you would or would not support a tax increase, which is what Norquist would have us believe.

Basically this is a situation where the Americans for Tax Reform say, “We played the flute for you and you did not dance.” Fred (and McCain) are not dancing to their flute playing and so Norquist feel it necessary to try to hit them.

By: Brian Sikma

Brian Sikma — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:23:32 +0000

Joel, thanks for commenting. As I said in my post, I respect both Thompson and McCain (for various reasons) and it’s interesting that they both worked closely for a cause I don’t support: campaign finance reform…er…we’ll let that subject drop.

Anyway, I went to the link you provided and I don’t think that Fred’s plan is a violation of The Pledge. He want’s to introduce a so-called flat tax (or a two tier flat-tax) which isn’t in violation of the The Pledge because said Pledge requires that any elimination of deductions be matched by lower tax rates. Fred’s plan includes deductions that, when added to the flatter tiers, makes for an overall reduction in the tax burden or, at minimum, a sustaining of the current burden under clearer rules.

Here’s another article about the pledge: http://veritasrex.typepad.com/veritas_rex/2008/01/taking-the-pled.html

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:13:22 +0000

Sorry about a third comment here, but I just noticed some more things about the press release. First, Rudy hasn’t signed it either, but they give him a pass based on his writings. They give no such pass to Fred, even though he has very good writings on the subject. Second, they ignore McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts. OK he didn’t push for increases–but was he moving for “Tax Reform”, which is implied by the name of the organization?

Finally, I went back to read Fred’s tax proposal (http://www.fred08.com/virtual/taxrelief.aspx) and noticed that what Fred has proposed includes breaking the pledge. Fred has proposed Tax Reform that includes a flat tax. Guess what–to impliment the flat tax, you get rid of most, if not all, deductions. That breaks pledge item #2. Yet it actually does far more to reform taxes than tweaking the tax rates.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:38:42 +0000

I went over and looked at the pledge. The signor pledges to:

“ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

“TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

There are so many ways that if you want to “simplify” or restructure the tax system, you would be “breaking the No New Tax Pledge” even if the result would be lower taxes. This pledge is a platitude and not valuable to making the tax system better.

The real question is: how do the candidates feel about taxes?

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:26:51 +0000

OK. So what? We have Fred tax plan. We know what he wants to do. Fred decided that he would sign NO pledges of any kind basically because it is pandering. Fred has been quite outspoken about the benefits of lower taxes. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent is the first point of his tax plan. Lowering the corporate tax rate is also in his plan. He is also pushing the RSC plan for a flat tax option (by the way, would that be “breaking” the pledge? Would Huckabee’s proposal for the “Fair Tax” be breaking the pledge?)

Actually, as I recall, Norquist’s “pledge” is only talking about personal income taxes, so maybe the “Fair Tax” would be ok.