« Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs | Main | Monetary & Fiscal Policy. Why the Tug-of-war? »

July 14, 2006


William Cubley


The creation of a CFA would probably help make the issue of taxes very clear to the average man.

We might. FOR EXAMPLE, decide that the housing industry does not need a the mortgage interest deduction. Canada has about the same percentage of home buyers/owners as does the USA. Canada has NO tax deduction for mortgage interest. Homes still get built in Canada for a profit by builders.

We might decide to tax oil [GASOLINE] at the same uountries do in Europe and elsewhere.

Yes, the annual pork bill might have a lot fewer items in it as the taxes must be collected to pay for this. Money spent should benefit the public and not reward campaign contributors.

Someone once said that war is too important to be left to generals. Maybe tax rates are too important to be left to elcted officials.

However, we must remember this - at least our economy is GREAT. We have NOT dispossed our creators of wealth as has Zimbabwe. We still are a land of opportunity.

D Shangraw

This sounds way too simple to have our government accept. It's quite possible this could be a great tool to get some politicians publicly flogged!!(not a bad idea)As with abolishing the antiquated Electoral Vote system, this would put some of the control back in the laps of the (alleged) educated public. It would help the American people to better understand tax issues and tie taxes to a more logical platform. At worst it would keep the public more informed without using a political bias -- just facts.

C Martin

An interesting idea. Although you've gone out of your way to suggest that this would not require amending the constitution, a simple analysis suggests that this would never hold up in court. The IRS and other agencies, for example, cannot currently "forbid" congress from enacting legislation, as you propose that this group would have the "authority to forbid Congress to impose unfunded mandates on state or local governments or to impose taxes under any euphemistic name such as "user fees." I do recognize that such power would be essential for this system to be useful, but it would (and should) never stand up to a court challenge.
A second sticking point is that you underestimate the influence of political power. Giving this group the power to accept deficits if it felt that the country would benefit is opening a political playground. Just as there is pressure to stack the courts with those of your ideology, there would be even more pressure to stack this body. Imagine if this body could raise or lower rates just before an election, in order help or harm the party in power. The temptation (or driving force) would be too great.

Dick Lepre

In reply to C Martin's comment:

I have to agree with you that we need to tone down the "Congress cannot do this part." Let's give CFA the power to set rates on personal and corporate taxes and have Congress reserve the right to screw things up. Clearly the Constitution gives the right to tax to Congress. Our suggestion will be that having created income taxes Congress can pass along the details regarding the rates to this new entity. CFA will be chartered to set those rates in accordance with the spending of Congress and the best interests of the nation's economy.

Michael Lee

Similar to Shangraw's comment, it makes too much sense for politicians to accept, especially since they seem to refuse to agree on anything. Have you taken these thoughts any further? I'd like to discuss it in more detail.

The comments to this entry are closed.