Ambitious Republican reform plans show America’s best days still lie ahead

We Americans have known for some time that our tax code is an incoherent jumble, cobbled together over many years by politicians with wildly different perspectives on the world.

Taxation is the most vexatious, tangible, and intimate interaction most Americans ever have with Washington. And it is a damning indictment of the state of American political life that we have managed to avoid serious reform of a system so commonly acknowledged to be a failure since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

Until now. For in one of the surest signs yet that we do not live in ordinary times, congressional Republicans have chosen to stake their electoral hopes in next year’s midterms on passing an enormous overhaul of the federal tax code.

It is difficult to overstate quite how massive these proposals are. The blockbuster figures are slashing the corporate income tax rate by 15 percentage points, eliminating America’s equivalent of inheritance tax, and providing a childcare tax credit; all in, this is projected to increase the deficit by roughly $1.7trillion over 10 years.

These plans are a welcome return to genuine ambition in legislating, brimming with the sort of conservative vision that’s been so sorely missed over these many months.

They are also a response to those who would brand this a do-nothing Congress, and proof that the people’s representatives have not simply sought power for its own sake.

Removing the inefficiencies and inequalities that permeate the tax code would serve as a valuable counterweight to the cynicism which acts as a millstone around the neck of our common political discourse.

True reform has the power to hit back, too, at the ugly brand of economic nationalism that tore through the country last year by proving that the key to making American jobs more sustainable is not to bully companies into remaining in an unprofitable environment, but to make it worth their while to stay.

Furthermore, simplifying the tax code and reducing the number of deductions available would undermine the dangerous notion that the rules are different for those with enough money to hire slick accountants and lawyers. It is vital to demonstrate definitively that the federal government does not belong to those with the ability to make regular campaign contributions.

But we are not there yet. There is a wide gulf between the House and Senate versions of the tax reform bill, so many are predicting some bloodletting over the final provisions. And thank goodness for that – for two reasons.

First, it would show that the Republican congressional caucus still has some fight left in it. Punch-drunk from the double jab of Trump winning the nomination and then the general election, it has been stumbling around in a daze for a year and a half, making such half-hearted attempts at governing as to invite open

at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion speculation about whether or not the Republican Party will be able to survive.

Scared of a base which they no longer recognise and cowed by a president who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care that it’s considered bad form to attack members of one’s own party, most of the congressional Republican caucus has gone to ground, apparently of the belief that hiding under one’s desk is the better part of valour. Tax reform is their chance to get up off the mat.

Second, the proposals still have major deficiencies. Disappointingly, neither bill would end universal taxation for citizens, a bizarre feature of the US tax code that sees Americans living abroad paying taxes twice: once in the country in which they reside, and once to the IRS.

The House bill would also eliminate a popular credit for the costs associated with adoption; coming from the pro-family party, this reeks of hypocrisy and will seriously impact the number of children brought into loving homes.

It is critical that these provisions are corrected in the final version of the bill, as they represent serious political miscalculations in the midst of an historically cynical and divided period.

If taxation is a proxy for sovereignty, ambition to improve one’s tax system must surely be a sign of confidence that the country’s best days lie ahead. Getting this law right is about more than preserving the future of the Republican Party; it is about preserving the good faith of the American people that the game is not rigged.

Molly Kiniry is a researcher at the Legatum Institute

Unaffordable housing has claimed two more victims: the bachelor pad and pets. Shockingly, a third of men below the age of 34 still live with their parents, up significantly since the Nineties. There is some truth to the suggestion that this is a sad reflection of a crisis in masculinity, but the cost of buying or renting will be a factor, too. Twenty-somethings would like to be considered adults, yet unless they are exceptionally well paid, the Tory dream of true independence is increasingly difficult for them to obtain.

Pet ownership, meanwhile, is falling. New houses are often too small to accommodate dogs and cats, and renters are often banned from keeping animals by landlords. For a nation of animal lovers, this is a tragedy. But the sinister implications for the future of Conservatism deserve examination, too.

Nerves are fraying in government about the precipitous decline in home ownership. The simple truth is that while buying a house has always been hard, it is comparatively harder today. The ratio between average earnings and house prices is stratospheric, with demoralising implications for young people won over by the Thatcherite promise of mass property ownership.

But the equation has never been as simple as person plus mortgage equals Tory voter. This crisis is undermining Conservatism’s cultural foundations.

‘Getting this law right is about more than preserving the future of the Republican Party; it is about preserving the good faith of the American people that the game is not rigged’

‘It is no stretch to say that if you’re disciplined and responsible enough to look after an animal, you’re less likely to take a lax view of crime and punishment’

at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion