Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 3

President Bush's tax cuts, which Congress enacted and which will expire at various times over the next decade, not only stimulated the recovery from the nasty recession of 2001 but also produced record revenues for the Treasury.

The liberals look at the federal deficit and blame it on the tax cuts. Consider the record. It is NOT the tax cuts which are responsible for the deficit. It is excessive federal spending by Congress, sanctioned by the President, which has produced the deficit.

Getting back to a flat tax, as long as the rate is reasonable, it is, in fact, a fair tax. The rich now can find ways to shelter money from taxation, although many tax shelters were abolished over the years. A flat tax there would eliminate deductions. The little tax savings from mortgage interest would be compensated by lower taxes. Same for charitable giving.

There is a myth that if taxes are reduced charitable giving will suffer. Has it ever happened? Beginning with President Reagan in 1981 we have had tax cuts. Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton raised taxes. President George W. Bush has brought them back down. Every time taxes are lowered charitable giving rises. A flat tax, for the average taxpayer, would amount to a further reduction. Tax reductions always have stimulated more economic activity and employment, which always has resulted in more taxes collected.

If a 15% flat tax rate were imposed, for example, and a taxpayer earned $40,000, his taxes would be $6,000. But in later years, through hard work and inventiveness, if he earned $1 million, he would pay $150,000 in taxes.

America is unique in that it enables those who are enterprising to prosper. The current tax debacle is a deterrent to entrepreneurs. It takes far too much of their earnings to the point that it is hard for them to re-invest. The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies. Most of those are Subchapter S corporations, meaning the owners get the revenues from the corporations and can re-invest extra money in their companies. The more money they would have available to re-invest the more employment we would have. A flat tax would help to accomplish that.

I know the President is continuing his Social Security tour, which has convinced people that there is a problem. The President yet must succeed in getting the public to accept his solution. At some point, he must assess the status of the Social Security fight and either postpone his initiative or call for action. At that point presumably he will switch to tax code amendment proposals. He has a bi-partisan commission which will recommend to him changes in the tax code. I hope that commission will recommend a flat tax and, if so, that the President will go all out to sell it. If the public really understands how fair a flat tax could be the public would buy it. And then at tax time it would take Joyce about an hour to do our taxes. She would not age in doing so and we would be taxed fairly, which would mean more money for church and charities.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3