It certainly appears that someone over at FairTax.org actually read my message and was moved by it, although some attribution would have been nice.Hello FairTax supporters,
Given the current debate on immigration laws, we have been asked repeatedly how the FairTax relates to this issue. The answer is that the FairTax will for the first time tax undocumented workers who now evade U.S. taxes. That is just one more reason to support the FairTax. Under the FairTax all residents contribute to the tax base, whether they are living in the U.S. legally or illegally.
Buck mentioned to me all of an hour ago that he woke up to a talk radio show the other morning where the subject was illegal immigration and a caller had mentioned FairTax in passing, but didn't make the connection. Instead, he went on about the economics of building a 700 mile wall. Buck and I agreed that's just a silly point to debate. Neither amnesty nor unenforceable rules are going to fix the problem. The incentives for coming here illegally are just too high.
The wider media doesn't read my blog, but I bet they get the FairTax updates. It'll be interesting to watch and see if something big gets rolling from this.
2 comments:
I predict a "FairTax" won't happen, judging by the politics of the issue. I do think it would be preferable to tax something that is harmful -- like gasoline, or cigarettes -- than to tax something we want to encourage, like work. This would be a market way of adding some of the "true costs" of things we buy to their actual price. I wonder if we can be more targetted than a general consumption tax...
As I mentioned in a comment in my prior posting, I agree with you. This is unlikely.
However, you've touched on another point about why I like this plan. A consumption tax doesn't have to tax different classes of items at the same rates, just as sales taxes in existence today don't. Taxes on things like gasoline and cigarettes, as well as stuff like hotels and parking, are already higher than the basic sales tax in most jurisdictions.
My only hesitation is that such a method could be used as a tool for social engineering by special interests far too easily and on a wider scale than previously because it would be federal rather than state driven. Don't you think PETA, for example, would immediately begin lobbying for a higher consumption tax on meat and leather? Or the open source crowd on commercial software? Or any anti-X group on X?
And don't forget, taxing income isn't just taxing work, it's taxing investment, too. Investment is what creates all those jobs in the first place, and should also be rewarded, not penalized.
Post a Comment