That Paul Krugman is an ideologue really doesn’t bother me that much. What bothers me is that he a wholly unoriginal, boring, and mean-spirited ideologue, and he occupies prime real-estate at the NY Times. If Krugman wants to dampen some of my criticism, he might take a cue from this Michael Kinsley piece on the flat tax:
The so-called flat tax is another hobby horse of the right that swept the nation, then got swept away. But someone forgot to tell Steve Forbes, the amiably blank-faced magazine heir, who ran for president on the issue in 1996 and 2000. Now he has a book out: “Flat Tax Revolution.” It’s getting the full fair-and-balanced treatment — that is, unashamed open-throated puffery — on Fox News and other conservative outlets. So even though the idea looks pretty dead right now, a stake through its heart might still be prudent.
The flat tax is a game of three-card monte that deliberately confuses the issues of simplicity, fairness and the total tax burden on society. A simpler tax system would be a very good thing: good for the economy, and good for everyone’s sanity. But contrary to what Forbes would have you believe, progressive tax rates — higher taxes on higher incomes — aren’t what make the current system so complicated. It’s as easy to multiply by 40% as it is to multiply by 17%. Even Republicans can easily do it — or hire someone to do it for them, if necessary…
Forbes figures that almost everybody would pay less under his proposal than under the current system. And just to make sure, he would let you opt to calculate your taxes under current rules, if you prefer. So everybody would pay less. That is swell. But it has nothing to do with the flatness or otherwise of the tax system. You could just as well combine a tax cut with a proposal to release all the animals from the National Zoo. People might like that too. A simpler tax system would be very nice. But find me some folks who would choose a flat tax over the current system even if it meant that they would pay more, not less. Then I’d be impressed.
That was, at least, fun to read.
(via the Washington Monthly)