In 1996, Mitt Romney was so passionately opposed to the flat tax that he took out an ad in the Boston Globe to criticize Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposal. “The Forbes tax isn’t a flat tax at all — it’s a tax cut for fat cats!” Romney, labeling himself a “concerned citizen,” wrote.
Looking at Romney’s record for the Presidential White Paper series, the Club for Growth noted Romney’s opposition to the flat tax specifically:
His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn’t a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a “tax cut for fat cats.” In 2007, Romney continued to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax “unfair.”
But in Plymouth, N.H., today, Romney made a statement that suggested he might be changing his position. “The proposals that I’ll be putting out this fall will talk about bringing our tax rates down, both at the corporate level and the individual level, simplifying the tax codes, perhaps with fewer brackets. The idea of one bracket alone would be even better in some respects,” Romney said.
He went on to stress that he didn’t want to provide tax cuts to the rich (which seems to have been his main concern about a flat tax back in the day), but it’s hard to see how “the idea of one bracket alone” is anything other than a flat tax. Video:
Among the other candidates, Jon Huntsman implemented a flat tax of 5 percent in Utah, Newt Gingrich has expressed support for a near-flat or an optional flat tax in the past, and Michele Bachmann is at least open to a flat tax.
Neither here nor there. "Flat tax" isn't just a proposal for a single tax rate, but a collection of proposals including what gets taxed and what gets deducted. One can be in favor of a single tax rate on taxable income, yet disagree on what gets taxed and what get deducted.
I would alternatively argue that some things, such as national defense, are solely for the benefit of property owners (including patents). Therefore, property should be taxed to pay for it, not income tax. On the other hand, redistribution (Medicaid, etc.) is charitable by nature, and therefore the people should decide how charitable it should be, and tax sales accordingly (the more you spend on yourself, the more you give to charity).
On the other hand, I don't believe the government should be in the business of enforcing private contracts. Won't happen.
"national defense, are solely for the benefit of property owners"
What? Perhaps one of the strangest things I have ever read. Your statement, taken to the logical conclusion, would mean that you believe that people who don't have anything to fear from terorists, or aggressive nation state. Is that correct?
"On the other hand, I don't believe the government should be in the business of enforcing private contracts"
Oops, I spoke to soon. THIS is the strangest thing that I have ever read. I take it that you're then advocating for some privatized court system where contract disputes between two parties are litigated, or am I getting that wrong too?
You do realize that one of the fundamental reasons that the Court system was established is to PRECISELY hear and resolve contract disputes between two parties. That's exactly what the Founders had in mind, in addition to litigating criminal cases.
1. Maybe the Founders did indeed establish the court system to enforce two-party private contracts. Also, it helped to return fugitive slaves to their owners.
2. I am not saying that the Constitution should be interpreted in a "living" manner to ignore private contracts. I am merely saying that the Founders were narcissistics, not enlightened.
3. On my first point, about national defense working for the benefit of property, rest assured that if the troops of Omar Abdul bin Whatsit paratroop in and offer me (not being a property owner) a better deal if I work for them, I'll take it. Just as if the troops of Juan Valdez sneaked across the border and worked for less money under the table, you would hire them. Case closed!
The alternative to a government-run criminal justice system is -- the blood feud, Njal's Saga-style.
The alternative to a government-run civil litigation system is -- your creditor's cousin Vinnie takes a hammer to your fingertips until you pay up.
Even with private arbitration (which has gotten more common over the past decades), it wouldn't work if arbitration awards couldn't be converted into legally enforceable judgments.
I know full well it's his name, and your attempt to demean and belittle is obvious. It is simply more immature sophistry. Don't worry, you are not alone, many have embraced this embarrassing garbage, which is far from the class once associated with serious Conservatism.
I remember your ugly class warfare quite well, obsessing bizarrely about Mr. Romney's wealth, even mentioning "servants". It was such an embarrassment, it will be hard to forget. The hateful display was ugly, Mr. Romney, and perhaps resent his success. It is rather sad.
It all sounded just like Barack Obama, railing against the "rich".
No conservative would ever embrace this hostility for someone who is "well off", because we simply do not embrace class warfare. We want everyone to succeed, regardless of who they are, race, creed, class, etc.
The point is, if you have such a delusional emotive bigotry against someone, you are simply not sound - your judgment is lost. It is what Democratic Partisans do, they have an emotive bias and it dictates their offering. This repeatedly leads to disaster.
Conservatism is the complete opposite, and does not offer juvenile sophistry, but employs reason, basis, facts, objectivity, decency, fairness, etc.
Mrs. Trinko is interesting. She is outstanding, but one has to grow curious. We certainly will see endless efforts to debase the Romney Candidacy, growing to extreme levels day by day as the Race develops.
I wonder, are we going to cover the various flips and flops of Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry in the same manner? Will they reach the Corner? It seems Mrs. Bachmann can pull away from the Ryan Plan without fear of any criticism, simply due to the fashionable image of today's game. She can even distort the record of Mr. Pawlenty openly without much reaction.
Did this one make it to Corner? Perhaps I missed it... External Link
Perhaps the bias is so thick in the Conservative arena, it just cannot be helped. Many believe we live in a very unfair world. Maybe the potentially negative pushed for the unfashionable (ironically in this case a Free Market entity/success vs. the Public Sector offerings who fit the proper image), will become the overt theme in the race.
Of course, it has all led to disaster after disaster for us, further enabling the opposite. Biden's old Senate seat in Delaware is a prime example.
John, I am fine with him changing a position 15 yrs later or even if it is 3 years later. The economic times we are in causes many people to change the way we look at situations. Over time as you gain more insight and wisdom people's paradigms shift and hopefully you become all the more wiser. I would say most people have changed their position on certain views in 5-10-15 years.
As far as your result search, you received the result you did only because the media discussed Romney's change of positions more and so there are going to be more selections to pull from. The three you mentioned did not even run last election and of course they will have low results. :o)
At first I smacked my palm against my forehead at the thought of such a blatant flip flop, but I think this is much ado about nothing.
To be fair, the ad is noting a discrepancy between a true flat tax vs. what Forbes' plan would have accomplished. The discrepancy is that capital gains would be taxed at 0% while income would be taxed at 17%, which is not really "flat" across all income types. The 0% on capital gains is what he was referring to as the tax break for "fat cats."
The other point I'd make is that he actually calls for a "true flat tax" in the bullet points: "Simplify taxation with a true flat tax that helps working people, not millionaires."
Just an observation - not saying he doesn't ever play two sides of the same coin, but don't think that's the case here.
Neither here nor there. "Flat tax" isn't just a proposal for a single tax rate, but a collection of proposals including what gets taxed and what gets deducted. One can be in favor of a single tax rate on taxable income, yet disagree on what gets taxed and what get deducted.
I would alternatively argue that some things, such as national defense, are solely for the benefit of property owners (including patents). Therefore, property should be taxed to pay for it, not income tax. On the other hand, redistribution (Medicaid, etc.) is charitable by nature, and therefore the people should decide how charitable it should be, and tax sales accordingly (the more you spend on yourself, the more you give to charity).
On the other hand, I don't believe the government should be in the business of enforcing private contracts. Won't happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"national defense, are solely for the benefit of property owners"
What? Perhaps one of the strangest things I have ever read. Your statement, taken to the logical conclusion, would mean that you believe that people who don't have anything to fear from terorists, or aggressive nation state. Is that correct?
"On the other hand, I don't believe the government should be in the business of enforcing private contracts"
Oops, I spoke to soon. THIS is the strangest thing that I have ever read. I take it that you're then advocating for some privatized court system where contract disputes between two parties are litigated, or am I getting that wrong too?
You do realize that one of the fundamental reasons that the Court system was established is to PRECISELY hear and resolve contract disputes between two parties. That's exactly what the Founders had in mind, in addition to litigating criminal cases.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeck, one of the central reasons for having a *government* is contract disputes.
“The whole duty of government is to prevent crime and to preserve contracts.” — Lord Melbourne.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we wanted Lord Melbourne, then we would not have rebelled. God save the Queen!
Say, how's England been, lately? Enforcing private contracts, I presume?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm guessing that WG tried to skip out on a debt, and the govt courts forced him to pay up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI stand by what I wrote before:
1. Maybe the Founders did indeed establish the court system to enforce two-party private contracts. Also, it helped to return fugitive slaves to their owners.
2. I am not saying that the Constitution should be interpreted in a "living" manner to ignore private contracts. I am merely saying that the Founders were narcissistics, not enlightened.
3. On my first point, about national defense working for the benefit of property, rest assured that if the troops of Omar Abdul bin Whatsit paratroop in and offer me (not being a property owner) a better deal if I work for them, I'll take it. Just as if the troops of Juan Valdez sneaked across the border and worked for less money under the table, you would hire them. Case closed!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"if the troops of Omar Abdul bin Whatsit paratroop in and offer me (not being a property owner) a better deal if I work for them, I'll take it."
So you are admitting that you have no principles and the only thing you care about is who will give you the most stuff.
Can we assume then that every one of your posts is nothing more than bought and paid for flim flam?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe alternative to a government-run criminal justice system is -- the blood feud, Njal's Saga-style.
The alternative to a government-run civil litigation system is -- your creditor's cousin Vinnie takes a hammer to your fingertips until you pay up.
Even with private arbitration (which has gotten more common over the past decades), it wouldn't work if arbitration awards couldn't be converted into legally enforceable judgments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, are you trying to argue that bombs only destroy property, but leave the people inside them unharmed?
This is nearly as ignorant as your previous claim that advertising has no value in the economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Willard, this would be an excellent time to appear to flip flop on a previous position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour bias is already duly noted, offering some very concerning class warfare - rejecting Romney's well to do existence...
Williard is often used to personally demean - it is the same old lack of decency which is contradictory of conservatism.
The fashionable garbage is not only predictable, it becomes a parody of itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, it's his name. Take your peurile complaints to his mother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know full well it's his name, and your attempt to demean and belittle is obvious. It is simply more immature sophistry. Don't worry, you are not alone, many have embraced this embarrassing garbage, which is far from the class once associated with serious Conservatism.
I remember your ugly class warfare quite well, obsessing bizarrely about Mr. Romney's wealth, even mentioning "servants". It was such an embarrassment, it will be hard to forget. The hateful display was ugly, Mr. Romney, and perhaps resent his success. It is rather sad.
It all sounded just like Barack Obama, railing against the "rich".
No conservative would ever embrace this hostility for someone who is "well off", because we simply do not embrace class warfare. We want everyone to succeed, regardless of who they are, race, creed, class, etc.
The point is, if you have such a delusional emotive bigotry against someone, you are simply not sound - your judgment is lost. It is what Democratic Partisans do, they have an emotive bias and it dictates their offering. This repeatedly leads to disaster.
Conservatism is the complete opposite, and does not offer juvenile sophistry, but employs reason, basis, facts, objectivity, decency, fairness, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemmm...
It is a healthy challenge. Yet one has to wonder.
Mrs. Trinko is interesting. She is outstanding, but one has to grow curious. We certainly will see endless efforts to debase the Romney Candidacy, growing to extreme levels day by day as the Race develops.
I wonder, are we going to cover the various flips and flops of Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry in the same manner? Will they reach the Corner? It seems Mrs. Bachmann can pull away from the Ryan Plan without fear of any criticism, simply due to the fashionable image of today's game. She can even distort the record of Mr. Pawlenty openly without much reaction.
Did this one make it to Corner? Perhaps I missed it...
External Link
Perhaps the bias is so thick in the Conservative arena, it just cannot be helped. Many believe we live in a very unfair world. Maybe the potentially negative pushed for the unfashionable (ironically in this case a Free Market entity/success vs. the Public Sector offerings who fit the proper image), will become the overt theme in the race.
Of course, it has all led to disaster after disaster for us, further enabling the opposite. Biden's old Senate seat in Delaware is a prime example.
We shall see...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoa, the Romneybots are going orbital in their attempts to deflect attention from the fact that their candidate has no morals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd therin lies the eternal problem with Romney.
A specific Google Search on "Mitt Romney" & "Switching Positions" will get you over 6,000 results.
Same search on other candidates:
Newt Gingrich 3,130
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Perry 610
Michelle Bachmann 9 (!)
John, I am fine with him changing a position 15 yrs later or even if it is 3 years later. The economic times we are in causes many people to change the way we look at situations. Over time as you gain more insight and wisdom people's paradigms shift and hopefully you become all the more wiser. I would say most people have changed their position on certain views in 5-10-15 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as your result search, you received the result you did only because the media discussed Romney's change of positions more and so there are going to be more selections to pull from. The three you mentioned did not even run last election and of course they will have low results. :o)
At first I smacked my palm against my forehead at the thought of such a blatant flip flop, but I think this is much ado about nothing.
To be fair, the ad is noting a discrepancy between a true flat tax vs. what Forbes' plan would have accomplished. The discrepancy is that capital gains would be taxed at 0% while income would be taxed at 17%, which is not really "flat" across all income types. The 0% on capital gains is what he was referring to as the tax break for "fat cats."
The other point I'd make is that he actually calls for a "true flat tax" in the bullet points: "Simplify taxation with a true flat tax that helps working people, not millionaires."
Just an observation - not saying he doesn't ever play two sides of the same coin, but don't think that's the case here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The 0% on capital gains is what he was referring to as the tax break for "fat cats."
And that, of course, would be a characterization just as wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFair enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse