Transition costs surround debates over fundamental tax reform. Calculations of transition costs have followed the setup pioneered by Alan Auerbach and Larry Kotlikoff. In this volume, the authors focus on the most critical transition issues from the political perspective.

Papers presented at a conference held at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, in Apr. 2006.

Building on previous FAD work in the tax administration field, this paper defines broad criteria for diagnosing the problems in a country’s tax administration and formulating an appropriate reform strategy. To be effective, this strategy should be based on the size of the tax gap and the country’s particular circumstances. This paper discusses some guiding principles which have provided the basis for successful reforms, including: reducing the tax system’s complexity, encouraging taxpayers’ voluntary compliance, differentiating the treatment of taxpayers by their revenue potential, and ensuring the reform’s effective management. Also discussed are specific bottlenecks that hinder the effectiveness of the tax administration’s operations.

This study explores how the tax design called the X tax could alleviate the complexities and avoidance opportunities plaguing the existing U.S. system for taxing international business income.

Tax experts across the political spectrum agree that the current rate structure is not rational and that potential gains from reform could be remarkable. Accordingly, tax reform is widely viewed as desirable. However, there is not a clear consensus on what reforms are most desirable or feasible. In Toward Fundamental Tax Reform, eleven leading tax scholars, including a Nobel Prize winner, outline their ideas about tax reform. The original essays provide readers with concise but varying perspectives on the possibilities of tax reform. They also focus attention on key questions in the scholarly debate: Would a different tax code dramatically alter the functioning of the economy? How much damage does the current law do? Can relatively small changes to the tax code deliver most of the benefits of more dramatic reforms like the flat tax? Are political forces that oppose efficient tax systems simply too powerful to overcome? Will tax reform inevitably harm the poor? Can a tax reform, if enacted, be sustained?

This new and updated edition of The Flat Tax—called "the bible of the flat tax movement" by Forbes—explains what's wrong with our present tax system and offers a practical alternative. Hall and Rabushka set forth what many believe is the most fair, efficient, simple, and workable tax reform plan on the table: tax all income, once only, at a uniform rate of 19 percent.

Our tax system is a mess. And the reason for that mess is, our tax system is incoherent. A well-designed tax system is like a good jigsaw puzzle: all the pieces fit together snugly, so when the whole thing is fully assembled, it forms a coherent picture. But our current tax system is disjointed, with parts that don't logically fit together. That results in inconsistencies, complexity, loopholes, and distorted incentives. We need a tax system that make sense. As this book shows however, making a traditional income tax coherent is an impossible goal. But coherence is achievable if we adjust our target, and complete the switch to a consumed-income tax -- a system that taxes all income, not when it is earned, but when that income is consumed. The move towards a consumed-income tax was begun decades ago, when we first adopted IRAs and other tax-deferred savings accounts. We just needed to complete the evolution. The book explores a variety of tax issues -- among them savings, small businesses, owner-occupied houses, and corporations -- and develops seven groups of recommended changes. These changes would result in a tax system that would be pro-growth, by eliminating the existing disincentives to saving and investment. But the tax system would also remain progressive, with the wealthy taxed as much as and perhaps even more than currently. That combination could make the recommended changes attractive to members of both parties, and might bring to a close the political seesaw in tax policy that we've experienced over that last several decades.