Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani gladly accepted Steve Forbes’ endorsement yesterday and “embraced Mr. Forbes’s signature issue, saying he liked the idea of a flat tax”, which is, as the NYT’s Richard Perez-Pena points out, “something Mr. Giuliani denounced when Mr. Forbes was running for president.”

If there were no federal income tax, “maybe I’d suggest not doing it at all, but if we were going to do it, a flat tax would make a lot of sense,” Mr. Giuliani, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, said yesterday, standing beside Mr. Forbes at the Nasdaq MarketSite in Times Square in New York. But he said it was not clear whether dissolving the current system, so ingrained in the economy, would be feasible.

Back in 1996, Giuliani said that implementing Forbes’ plan would be “a disaster” and “a mistake”. Seemingly, his opinion on this matter has evolved (something that’s happening to quite some politicians suddenly).

Giuliani is, obviously, socially not conservative enough, so that means that he has to score (conservative) points on fiscal issues.

As a conservative liberal, I support a flat tax as well. A “progressive” system is, in my opinion, not defendable. Those who say that those who have more should give more seemingly believe that those who have more should not just give more, but that they should give relatively more as well.

In the Netherlands we have the Social Party which wants to introduce an 80% tax for high incomes. 80%. Just think about that. Let that sink in for a while.

You’re working hard, sacrificing time you could also spend with your family, to do what you love doing and to earn money. Next the government comes in and takes away not ‘merely’ half of it, but 80%.

80.

50% is, in my opinion, too much already. This is the individual’s money, not that of the government / society. Some seem to have adopted this strange notion that one only keeps money one earns oneself by the grace of the government / the collective. In other words: you don’t have any right to complain, because the government could, if it wanted to, take (just about) everything. Instead of taking everything, it ‘limits’ itself to, say, half of it.

The reasoning described above is in breach with European liberalism and American conservatism.

And if the government needs the money, needs more than say 33%, well, I guess that means that the government is spending too much.

Cut spending, don’t raise taxes.

UPDATE
Talking about taxes:

House Democrats today will propose the largest tax hike in American history, one which will add more poor people to the tax rolls and which will further burden millions of small businesses. They will position this as fiscal discipline while refusing to trim federal spending…

Cut spending… raise taxes… cut spending… raise taxes.

Raise taxes it is.