We got government off the backs of the people of India, particularly off the backs of India's entrepreneurs. We introduced more competition, both internal competition and external competition. We simplified and rationalized the tax system. We made risk-taking much more attractive.

I clearly believe a lot more than some of my coalition colleagues - Tories - in redistribution and using the tax system for that purpose. I also believe in the government having an active role in the economy, which is having an industrial strategy. I'm not a believer in laissez-faire.

I think we should have basically the same tax policy that Germany, Japan, the U.K., everybody else has, which is a tax rate in the mid-20s and no loopholes. Zero. The U.S. has the most antiquated tax system. And that means some people are going to pay more taxes, and some people are going to pay less.

Fundamentally, I've always been a fan of actually looking at our whole state tax system and really figuring out how we reform our tax system so that everyone's paying their fair share but we don't have a lot of nickel and diming with 100 taxes that end up hitting people that maybe can't bear it the most.

I support both a Fair Tax and a Flat Tax plan that would dramatically streamline the tax system. A Fair Tax would replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a single national tax on retail sales, while a Flat Tax would apply the same tax rate to all income with few if any deductions or exemptions.

This country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards to our citizens - which is exactly what has been the case for years now. We pay a price when our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending or reform our tax system.

Individuals and businesses must participate in a national discussion about a simpler tax system, one that collects sufficient revenue to meet appropriate federal responsibilities, but one resting on a broader, fairer tax base without penalizing saving and investing, the backbone of a strong, decentralized and thriving economy.

A tax system is important because of what it can pay for, but also for how it works. When we pay taxes, we expect something back from the state; it strengthens the relationship and accountability between us and our governments. It also pays for what private finance shouldn't: our needs for healthcare, education and social security.

We've been prepared to make the arguments for lowering corporation tax, which is all about encouraging risk takers, encouraging entrepreneurs, and I observe that for the vast majority of the Labour government we had a top rate of 40 per cent income tax. It's now higher, and I think we should look to get to a simpler, lower tax system.

God forbid that the United Kingdom should take a lead and introduce a sensible tax system of its own which would probably comprise a very low level of corporation tax - tax on corporate profits - and perhaps a low level of corporate sales tax, because sales are where they are, and sales in this country are sales here, which we can tax here.

The Golden State has lost its luster. We've got to change our tax system and how we fund government. We're going to have to make it easier to create jobs in California, incentivize manufacturing, really put more in the way of investment in our public school system and our institutions of higher learning if we're going to stay the Golden State.

Those on the downside of rising economic inequality generally do not want government policies that look like handouts. They typically do not want the government to make the tax system more progressive, to impose punishing taxes on the rich, in order to give the money to them. Redistribution feels demeaning. It feels like being labeled a failure.

Share This Page