So much for trying to create a progressive tax code.
In North Carolina, Raleigh TV station WRAL—an important player in state policy coverage—took a similar approach in an interesting Jan. 24 segment. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s openness to an income/sales tax shift was played against criticism not just from a local left-leaning think tank, but from his own budget director, who called the proposed move “regressive”:
(A bit oddly, the segment doesn’t pause to explain that that budget director, Art Pope, is no ordinary bureaucrat: he’s a major conservative political financier who until recently sat on the board of the conservative think tank that came up with the tax plan.)
Of course, reporters can’t count on budget directors and revenue departments serving up commentary that undercuts their bosses’ talking points. And as these talks unfold at a pace set by statehouse politicians, it may be hard for reporters to keep up with each bit of incremental spin about the impact of this exemption or that credit on a particular group.
So it would be great to see some of the journalists covering this story be proactive, build a list of authoritative outside voices, and start asking right now: What would a progressive consumption tax look like at the state level? If lawmakers are serious about not simply shifting the tax burden onto poorer households, what features should the new regime have? What would the trade-offs be? Is it even possible for a state, rather than the federal government, to do this? As for who to turn to for help with these questions—I haven’t seen the name of Robert Frank, the Cornell economist, come up in any of these stories. It might be a good idea to give him a call.

Bruce Bartlett, a "sensible conservative," favors a VAT being made part of the federal tax mix.
That said, that's the federal side. VATs or consumption taxes have even less chance of passing at the state level. This whole thing is being driven by the likes of ALEC, which this story doesn't even note. (Yes, it notes Civitas, but it doesn't note Pope's connections with ALEC as well, and as to why this is getting multi-state play, especially from governors far on the right.)
#1 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Fri 25 Jan 2013 at 04:24 PM
@SocraticGadfly,
Thanks for the comment. Any links to share on ALEC's specific role here? (Or on any other institutions that are playing a role across state borders.)
#2 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Fri 25 Jan 2013 at 07:29 PM
"It’s just that some people prioritize fairness." What a jerk to make such a statement. It's a typically Republican thing to say.
Some people prioritize productivity, hard work, and justice. The NRC and DNC fail to recognize this.
I don't like lazy-assed deadbeats who collect foodstamps and other assistance simply because they "qualify", but the idea that some pampered rich kid who inherits a trust fund and doesn't do a thing useful to the rest of the world can skate by without paying their "FAIR" share is truly appalling. Indolence should never be rewarded. Investing in the stock market is NOT productive and income derived from such sources should NEVER be treated with favor.
Individuals who do nothing for their income should be taxed to the max. People who "earn" their money should see the least taxes.
#3 Posted by unkjwea, CJR on Mon 28 Jan 2013 at 12:42 PM
The latest debate on the issue of state tax shift should not be taken for granted. I think every American citizen deserves better understanding of what is really going on in their surroundings, specifically the direct connection between state mandates and state aid. Tax shift is a significant process to address problems associated to municipal budgets. I think the catch here is the continuation of significant municipal services as this new state mandate seems to provide local officials the tools as well as the flexibility of implementing sustainable, genuine property tax relief. Well I just want to thank you as your post has help readers, like me, a lot. Online PhD Programs
#4 Posted by Richard, CJR on Sat 9 Mar 2013 at 01:31 PM