Sorry, I don't really fully understand why some conservatives oppose the child tax credit. I get that they don't want favoritism in the tax code, but until you get a flat tax or a fair tax, why not at least make the favoritism work for us? Also, don't get the logic of a tax break for the wealthy but not the middle class. Yes, I firmly believe that class warfare is stupid and counterproductive, that all our taxes are too high and that lowering them on the rich would help create jobs, but why not give a tax break to those who are raising the next generation? I can't remember the author off-hand, but someone here on the Corner was just writing this week about how when the income tax first was implemented, few people paid it. Quite frankly, that doesn't sound like a bad goal to shoot for to me. Though, yes, I fully realize it would require drastic spending cuts and entitlement reform, those are both things conservatives already want.

Ultimately, though the activist part of me wants a big bold vision from Romney, it would be smarter for him to embrace more incremental change. Something like cutting the tax rate on the wealthy and also expanding the child tax credit, while closing some other loopholes would go well in that regard and would please many people because it would offer a little something for everyone.

Maybe he should tackle entitlement reform first with the carrot of reduced, flat tax rates later?
I would just like to see 'progressive' removed from the tax code.

You rule out option #1. Your assumption that radical reform needs to represent a dramatic cut in revenue is incorrect. I happen to believe that a dramatic cut in revenue is exactly the medicine the government needs but radical reform of the tax code does not necessarily require this. In addition, to view a reform of the tax code through the opaque lens of the farcical "scoring" process is a mistake. The public is aware that OMB scoring has little relation to reality and should not be the context in which any reform is viewed.

I just heard Newt's PAC add on Rush. It is a devastating attack on his electability. It will not be defeated by Mitt's embrace of creative destruction or the supply side misdirection Fred Barnes urges him to belatedly adopt. Newt's attack is working, as Mitt's SC numbers are dropping. It is comical to hear his surrogates complain about Newt going negative.

No matter. We are doomed - unless (i) Newt wins, AND (ii) a certain fat governor from New Jersey or thin governor from Indiana jumps or is forced in to the race.

Instead of coming out for tax reform per se...coming out for spending reform in to form of large goals for the House and Senate to argue over. I would love to see a 5,4,3,2 plan. The first year government spengin is cut 5% across the board...every department...every agency...you can do thin with administrative cuts. The next year 4%, etc. Then campaign on having Congress actually do its job....like actually passing a budget. I think the voters would love it and the markets would soar. But he might be too much of a thinker to rest his campaign on a big idea.

There is redistribution in this country - via government-imposed taxes - but it is distribution of income from the middle and upper middle class (who pay 25-35% in taxes) to the super rich (who pay only 15% taxes and only on income that they are unable to hide in one of the numerous loopholes and tax shelters available to them).

The only way to fix this income redistribution and bring tax fairness is:
1. Tax all income at exactly the same rates. The income of the super rich (capital gains and dividents) should be taxed at the same marginal rates as regular income - just as when federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA.
2. Close ALL tax shelters and loopholes that the super rich use to hide a large part of their income.
3. Reform (or, better, eliminate) the AMT to only target the super rich - as originally intended! Now the AMT mostly targets the middle class!
4. Introduce new tax brackets for incomes over $1M and $10M. When federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA only incomes of over $1.2M (in 2011 adjusted $) were taxed, at progressiv­e rates, but now there is not even a separate tax bracket for incomes larger that $1M.

A vote for Romney is a vote against your own self interest ... unless you're a millionaire. He wants to preserve these favored tax rates for the wealthy investor class...

Billionaire Warren Buffett paid 11% "total taxes" (federal, state, local, indirect taxes - including corporatetaxes) on $8 billion annual investment gains while a single minimum wage worker pays 37% "total taxes" from her $14,500 annual salary. See spreadsheet at External Link 

The top 1% in the US have gone from owning 22% to 40% of the nation's wealth in the last thirty years. It's largely due to the tax cuts for the wealthy investor class, started under Reagan. They were supposed to encourage investment and trickle down to strengthen the economy but have done the opposite. Since the Reagan tax cuts, average annual GDP growth has dropped by one-quarter. Why? Because we've had multiple recessions, triggered by investment bubbles, in turn caused by the favored tax treatment of investment income (via principles of supply-and-demand - Econ 101).

I propose that ALL federal, state, and local government services are funded with a reformed, simplified Income Tax and a new Net-worth Tax (a few percent of fortunes over $1million). Eliminate ALL other taxes. The reform would reduce each middle class annual total tax bill by thousands, slash the deficit; and eliminate the market-distorting tax breaks for investing that are ruining our economy and hobbling this country's ability to remain a force for good in the world. See the External Link  for more.