According to one estimate, freedom to purchase insurance policies issued in other states could save some families as much as 30 percent on their health policies. Unleashing the Constitution’s promise of unfettered interstate commerce is the most effective way of breaking up the inefficient oligopolies created by state politicians.

Last week’s Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Forum featured an unusual beginning as a looming hurricane in the Pacific forced the event from Cabo to Mexico City. This created special challenges for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity delegation since the government did not put jets at our disposal for the last-minute trip, as they did for official delegates. But we persevered and made our way to the Mexican capital.

The past several months have witnessed an unfortunate setback in the fight for good tax policy. Bolstered by a shift in the U.S. position from benign neglect to active support, anti-tax competition ideologues have won a somewhat significant victory. Low-tax jurisdictions, faced with direct and indirect threats of sanctions from powerful nations, have been forced to weaken their human-rights policies by agreeing that privacy laws no longer protect foreign investors. Indeed, jurisdictions are being coerced to sign agreements to provide confidential data upon request to at least 12 of their high-tax brethren.

Low-tax jurisdictions are being attacked by several committees in the U.S. Congress. These so-called havens are being assaulted by international bureaucracies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European Commission (EC). And they are being turned into scapegoats by the politicians meeting this week for the G-20 Summit. These events do not bode well for supporters of tax competition, fiscal sovereignty, and financial privacy.

Atleast 24 nations have adopted some form of single-rate tax regime. These reforms have generated impressive results, including faster growth, more jobs, and increased competitiveness. While politicians generally are most concerned about losing tax revenue, they should not worry. Flat tax systems oftentimes generate higher tax revenues because of more income and better compliance.

The Prosperitas study by Bram de Bruin (Erasmus University, Rotterdam), originally prepared as a masters’ thesis and with assistance from the European Independent Institute (The Hague, The Netherlands) investigates the effect of labour income taxes on the supply of paid labour for several Western countries over the last two decades.

Market-oriented tax policy has played a key role in Iceland’s rebirth. Major tax reforms include slashing the corporate tax rate from 50 percent to 18 percent, abolition of the wealth tax, a low-rate 10 percent flat tax on capital income, and an intermediate-rate 36 percent flat tax on labor income. These supply-side reforms, along with policies such as privatization and deregulation, have yielded predictable results. Incomes are rising, unemployment is almost nonexistent, and the government is collecting more revenue from a larger tax b

America is one of the few nations to tax citizens who live and work abroad. Indeed, no other industrialized nation imposes a second layer of tax on its expatriates. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced legislation, the Working American Competitiveness Act (S. 3496), to eliminate the worldwide reach of the IRS. By creating a territorial system for labor income, the DeMint legislation will put American workers and U.S.-based multinationals on a level playing field with competitors from other nations. This is a welcome move, particularly since American expatriates were just hit with a tax hike.

If policy makers created a level playing field by making Section 911 universal, more Americans could find jobs in the global economy, U.S. companies would become more internationally competitive, and U.S. exports would substantially increase.

The Internal Revenue Service has proposed a regulation (133254-02) that would require U.S. financial institutions to report bank deposit interest paid to certain nonresident aliens. The IRS admits that the information is not needed to enforce U.S. tax law, and instead seeks to collect the information so it can be provided to the tax authorities of 15 specified nations. But since nonresident alien depositors easily can shift their funds to other jurisdictions if they wish to protect their privacy, the regulation has attracted considerable opposition. Critics fear the regulation would drive capital from the U.S. economy and undermine the competitiveness of American financial institutions.