Greene is a UCLA alumnus from the Class of 1999.
By Ethan Greene
I commend students writing articles about things they feel are
important. But if Joel Schwartz really is interested in advocating
his point (“To bolster economy, impose flat tax,”
Viewpoint, April 9), it would behoove him to make logical, rational
assertions ““ arguments supported by actual facts.
For example, Schwartz says “Virtually all economists agree
that a flat tax is best for economies, and this has been
substantiated by a Wall Street Journal study that found, on
average, countries with a flat tax grow economically over two times
faster than countries with progressive tax systems.” But
Schwartz cites only two vague authorities to indicate that
“virtually all economists agree that a flax tax is best for
economies”. Who are these “virtually all”
economists? Only two items are mentioned in support ““ a Wall
Street Journal article that speaks to averages between countries
and a professor of economics who was once the chief economist at
the Joint Committee on Taxation. Last time I checked, one Journal
article and one economist do not equal “virtually all”.
If there are more, mention a few that directly state that a flat
tax is best for economies. If this is so widespread, I’m
sure there’s a quote somewhere which mentions this
assertion.
Schwartz criticizes proponents of progressive tax systems as
part of an “undoctrinated populous [which] doesn’t even
realize that the idea of an income tax is patently
un-American.”
First, Schwartz uses poor logic. If the Constitution forbade all
forms of income tax, then it never permitted the 1862
“temporary tax” cited. The original Constitution
(Article I Section 9) prohibits Capitation, or direct, taxes.
Second, a mention of the specific Constitutional provision would
be important to provide support.
Third, the suggestions are just wrong. Laziness is not
acceptable and certainly not persuasive. The Supreme Court
said in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company in 1916 that the Sixteenth
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but formalized the
income tax as a constitutionally permissible indirect tax. The 1895
Pollock case, which Schwartz indirectly refers to, was being
undermined by the Supreme Court over the ensuing years before the
16th Amendment was passed.
Fourth, the fact that the Constitution did not originally
expressly grant a provision does not make something
un-American. If this was the case, then what follows is that
something is “American” if it was in the original
Constitution before any Amendments were passed. So by
Schwartz’s logic and inference, slave owning is American
because it was originally protected in the Constitution. Great
argument.
Schwartz implies that a flat tax would eliminate the need for
the IRS. On this Schwartz again is just wrong. No
authorities were cited that support his view ““ just a bold
assertion. A pure flat tax does not itself mean anything. How it is
interpreted by the administering agency is important. For example,
if there is a flat tax based on percentage of income, how is
“income” defined? Is the increase in value of real
property over a year income if not sold? If sold during that
year? Schwartz oversimplifies corporate tax structuring
““ corporations are not individuals who get a nice little W-2
at the end of the year. Would income be defined by the actual
collection of money? How is the corporate “income”
determined? Is it by raw money received, or is it some valuation of
income versus expenses? If so, then how do you valuate losses?
Let’s see, if there is a flat tax, then who is going to
enforce the non-payment or underpayment of annual taxes?
You can change the name of the IRS to something else, but a tax
authority is clearly needed to handle the complexities of corporate
tax issues and personal tax issues, whether the tax is
“flat” or “proportional” or
“curved” or any other directional adjective applied to
it.
Schwartz also implies that a “flat tax” is a
fundamentally right and taxation lawyers keep filling the pockets
of Democrats while Republicans remain spineless. Where are
cites to authority that list Democratic fund-raising in regards to
taxes, and generally? Where has any court or any authority
implied that a flat tax is somehow a fundamental right of American
taxpayers? I thought Schwartz said the Constitution originally
forbade income taxes? If this is the case, then I guess the 16th
Amendment must make this a fundamental right. But by
Schwartz’s logic, this is un-American because it goes against
the text of the original Constitution. So is the fundamental
right of the flat tax un-American?
Schwartz’s article is nothing more than unsubstantiated
distortions, and is argued extremely poorly. I am not saying
that I agree or disagree with a “flat tax,” nor should
every Viewpoint article be a perfectly crafted essay. But if being
persuasive or taken seriously is a goal, then factual support and
good logic should be used at all times, not just when
convenient.