Dr. Carson's Tax Plan

This morning, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson released his tax plan on the Fox and Friends show for the public.

The plan had a small number of elements, some being principles and some being specifics.  But with Carson as a presidential candidate, not a president, and with the plan as a legislative proposal, not an executive edict, it needs to be discussed as a "framework".

Dr. Carson put a stake in the ground with a flat 14.9% rate on all personal income.  He mentioned, but did not specify details on the show, that wage earners below the poverty line would pay something but would pay at a lower rate.  He also spoke of a lower corporate tax rate (the USA has one of the world's highest, and small businesses are often taxed at very high ordinary income tax rates) but without specifics.

There would be no deductions or, if I heard right, exemptions either.  Dr. Carson made the point that the tax exists to raise revenue on which to run the Federal government -- not to encourage or discourage any activity or do social engineering.  Therefore, the code should simply be a flat percentage and voila, that's that.

I have to say at this point that I've written in detail here about my support for the flat-tax program and explained why I support it.  In my version, there is a single rate also, but it kicks in after a certain amount of income, say $30,000, is earned.  So I'm a supporter of the concept for sure.

I immediately went to Dr. Carson's website for the details but unfortunately did not find them.  I believe that a better-run campaign -- and the good physician's campaign has had some hiccups indeed -- would have had the details right there at the same time that he was appearing on Fox, so that he could say that "the details can be found at my website ...".  I really wanted to see all of it, but I couldn't, and that was disappointing.

I recall recent candidates putting out tax plans and then getting hammered as they tried to defend them.  I like and respect Ben Carson a lot, really a lot, so I hope that he does not fall into the trap of "literality" in presenting his plan, particularly with a debate next week.

The plan is a framework, meant (I hope) to stimulate discussion and, if he is elected, be the basis for what he takes to Congress for them to form into some kind of tax overhaul bill.  But by "literality", I mean that he has to resist the attacks that pick the details of his plan.

The answer to "14.9% is not the right number" is not to argue why it is 14.9% and not 16.7%.  It is to say that "... the actual, final percentage will be the subject of congressional analysis.  We should not be worrying about what that number is right at this point, but let us focus on why a single rate is best for the USA, for our economy and for helping to reduce government."

He should not be fielding questions about the corporate rate except to explain why a lower rate is needed and what the outcome will be.

He should not worry about what the rate that below-poverty-line wage earners should pay is, or field questions about that.  He should explain the virtue of everyone paying.  Explain that.  Get people to your side with the principle first.  Congress will end up setting the rate anyway.

We argue the wrong things all the time.  Dr. Carson needs to make sure we argue the right ones in this case.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.