A lot of the time, the media and mainstream political parties tether positions that have… A lot of the time, the media and mainstream political parties tether positions that have nothing to do with each other. Individuals’ beliefs are always nuanced. Why can’t one be pro-life but against the death penalty? Or pro-gun rights but against the Patriot Act? These combinations sprout from consistent values – the first, the sanctity of life, the second, concern for liberty – more so than the traditional liberal/conservative designations. Likewise, why can’t more of us stand up and say, “The FairTax is infeasible, but ‘No Country for Old Men’ was still an awesome movie?”

The only way to cut through the crime tape that politics has erected around the FairTax-NCFOM controversy is to consider each on its own merits. Sure, Republicans tend to agree with both the FairTax and the statement, “‘No Country for Old Men’ is one bad ass motion picture,” but more and more, lifelong Democrats are joining the chorus to voice concerns that “No Country for Old Men” freaking rocks. For once, there is ground for bipartisanship. How can we preserve it?

First, let’s tackle the FairTax. The FairTax is a plan to replace all federal taxes with a single retail sales tax, just like the state sales tax you pay right now. It would constitute about 23 percent of an item’s total cost. Unlike the sales tax you’re used to, though, the FairTax would fall on all purchases of goods and services, with no exceptions.

The FairTax has two advantages over the current system. First, it ends the taxation of capital. An income tax system discourages savings by taxing money both when it’s earned and again when the money grows. Less savings means less investment, and less investment means lower wages. Second, the FairTax is free of deductions – everything is taxed the same. Deductions divert resources from optimal to politically favored arrangements. They also assign tax burdens according to how much someone conforms to politicians’ views on what smart decisions are.

This begs the question, “What is No Country for Old Men?” We econ majors are often so immersed in our discipline that when we try to explain these matters, it all comes out as “Economese!” I’ll verse this in plain old English: “No Country for Old Men” is a sweet movie. It features a liberal allocation of ass kicking, resulting in a low person-who-appears-on-screen/person-who-dies-on-screen ratio. In contrast to “Cloverfield,” it displays a shockingly low marginal rate of substitution between awesomeness and goodness: Sure, Anton Sigur carries a silenced shotgun and an air pressure cattle-killing device, but we are also deeply interested in his character as a pure manifestation of humanity’s capacity for evil.

The Cohen Brothers made this valuable film, creating jobs for good Americans like Tommy Lee Jones, as well as Hispanic immigrants like Javier Bardem. Still, we shouldn’t all line up for the FairTax just yet.

The FairTax faces transition issues, since existing taxes raise the prices of everything, including labor. Moving to the FairTax, two situations could unfold.

First, prices excluding the FairTax could fall, so with the FairTax, prices would be the same as now. But for that to happen, nominal wages would have to fall. It’s unlikely workers will accept nominal wage cuts, even if employers explain that the after-tax value of wages are the same. This trouble is deepest for state and local governments, with their unionized, politically muscular labor forces. If they can’t cut wages, state and local governments will, in effect, pay federal taxes.

Second, prices excluding the FairTax could stay the same, so with the FairTax, prices would be higher. Then, nominal wages wouldn’t fall. However, a price increase would place a huge burden on retirees, because the money they’ve saved their whole lives won’t go as far as they’d planned. Then the United States will be no country for old men, as they say.

The only transition issue that the film “No Country for Old Men” faces is the post-viewing disappointment that your life is much more boring than “No Country for Old Men.”

We could render the FairTax’s advantages simply by tweaking our tax code. First, we could nix almost all deductions, perhaps saving credits for health insurance and children. Second, we could cut taxes on capital, like the dividends, the capital gains and corporate income tax. Or, we could expand IRA limits. These easy fixes could strengthen our economy without the fuss of the FairTax.

In the end, we must prioritize. I, for one, would rather have “No Country for Old Men” than the FairTax. And any interloping politician who wants to rest such an awesome movie from the masses had better offer a better bribe than a flawed path to tax reform. Americans are usually open to reasoned consideration, but on some issues, this is no country for compromise.

E-mail Lewis at [email protected].