Left, right, conservative, progressive- they all get it wrong when it come to Piketty’s inequality shibboleth (and the proposed “solutions”).
Exhibit 1 is this drivel from Forbes, complete with light criticism of the reliably awful Peter Orzag. Orzag (via Bloomberg) pines for a progressive consumption tax, and Forbes is A-OK with that:
There’s much to like in this editorial by Peter Orszag. His two major suggestions for altering the tax system make complete and total sense. Yes, it would be good if we all moved to a progressive consumption tax and it would also be a good idea if we moved to an inheritance rather than an estate tax. There are no complaints from me on either of those scores.
The Forbes article goes on to discuss in detail the niceties of what constitutes a tax on wealth, and what constitutes a tax on consumption. Since Forbes is “free-market,” it prefers a tax on consumption. Mr. Orzag’s only sin is that he fails to understand his own proposal properly.
As Ron Paul explained, tax reform is a shell game. It’s simply a matter of aligning various interests against each other to make sure the other guy pays.
All one needs to know about any tax reform proposal is summarized by the Rockwell Rule:
I really must say this again because it is the most important single point you can remember when evaluating whether to support a tax reform or not: the only trustworthy plan is that one that proposes a lowering or elimination of an existing tax, period.
