The Flat Tax: Good for America, Bad for Washington
by Dan MitchellAmerica’s biggest fiscal challenge is excessive government spending. The public sector is far too large today and it is projected to get much bigger in coming decades. But the corrupt and punitive internal revenue code is second on the list of fiscal problems. This new video, narrated by yours truly and produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, explains how a flat tax would work and why it would promote growth and fairness.
There are two big hurdles that must be overcome to achieve tax reform. The first obstacle is that the class-warfare crowd wants the tax code to penalize success with high tax rates. That issue is addressed in the video in a couple of ways. I explain that fairness should be defined as treating all people equally, and I also point out that upper-income taxpayers are far more likely to benefit from all the deductions, credits, exemptions, preferences, and other loopholes in the tax code.
The second obstacle, which is more of an inside-the-beltway issue, is that the current tax system is very rewarding for the iron triangle of lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats (or maybe iron rectangle if we include the tax preparation industry).
There are tens of thousands of people who make very generous salaries precisely because the tax code is a playground for corrupt deal making. A flat tax for these folks would be like kryptonite for Superman. But more than two dozen nations around the world have implemented a flat tax, so hope springs eternal.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
589 Comments
The rich should pay more. It's simple economics that a dollar has more value to a poor person, so we need redistribution to maximize social welfare.
move to russia…
This simplicity removes special interests' interest in the political process, which in turn removes money from campaign coffers, so it is politically distasteful. It also would reduce the size of government…another great idea…which is politically distasteful.
We need to find and support and vote in Leaders who get this!!!
Flat tax + flat earth = SWEEPING ELECTORAL GAINS FOR THE GOP
Once upon a time, I was a big fan of flat tax. Now, not so much. What changed me was the conversion of a significant fraction of the "rich" to the left. Due to social pressure, guilt or ego they are more and more not only supporting the left but influencing and funding it. They can afford the tax lawyers, and they can afford the politically connected friends. They can afford to pay more with little impact to their lifestyles.
One of the big advantages to a flat tax is that it makes the lower income folks have a vested interest in not raising taxes while also not punishing the upper middle class for success. What it doesn't do is give the politically connected rich any reason to stop posturing as marxist revolutionaries and that's what's driving our culture and politics right now.
The rich would pay more…but the same percentage on more income! And if loopholes are removed, it would remove discriminatory practices.
We also need to minimize social welfare through personal responsibility! One of the priciples that our country was founded on.
I suggest you move to someplace interesting like Venezuala.
The Fairtax is a much better way to go. Flat tax does hit all sectors and does not represent the proper ratio of taxes per earnings.
No that's gibberish, not economics. If you want a simple economic principle then try this one.
Invest in something and it has a tendency to grow, investing in handout programs produces more people with their hands in other people's pockets, and less pockets to dip into.
You want a better life? Then get off you’re a'ss and earn one.
You know I have never been a big fan of the flat tax. The only benefit i see is it is simpler than the current system.
http://www.PoliticalCentrist.com News and views for independent voters
"A flat tax for these folks would be like kryptonite for Superman."
Bring it on….the problem is the lobbyists, big business, and politicians would have a reduction their in power so we will never see it….unless we can upset the apple cart and put regular true statesmen into the legislature and the Presidents seats. It is possible that "the times they are a changin."
We just saw the ruling elite make the biggest power grab since FDR. Does anybody really think they'd allow a tax reformation that would reassign power to us rabble?
Poor people already pay a higher percentage of the income in taxes and you want to make it worse?
Warren Buffett paid 17% on his $46 million. His secretary paid 30% on her $60 thousand.
And you think Buffett should pay even less. Do you really think this is in your own best interest?
God you people are stupid.
The other side of the coin is a priorotized balanced budget amendment so they cannot cut essential programs like defense before first cutting non-essential programs like the senate cafeteria (for instance)
One without the other just means they indebt us even further than they already have. The only way to stop the thieves is remove the money from the vault and make sure they can no longer buy on we the peoples credit.
If this does not happen then we will be zimbabwe in the not to distant future.
This flat tax vs fair tax debate on the right cracks me up.
You wingnuts need to wake up and realize that you LOST.
No more redistribution from the poor to the rich. Tax rates are going up like they should for a fair society.
neither of them should pay anything.
and look at all the problems that have arisen from the ability to collect the income tax: everyone has serious problems with the the welfare/warfare state, depending on where you stand, and the government keeps growing and controlling because it has the ability to raise taxes endlessly.
That's not tax policy, that's a slogan.
For starters, who's "rich" and what's "more"? For most libtards, "rich" means anyone making more than them.
17% of $46 million is just over $7.8 million while 30% of $60K is only $18K. Even if you made the flat tax 1% higher than Buffet paid (based on your numbers) he would pay and additional $460K and his secretary would pay $7,200 less. That's an increase in tax revenue while not really hurting Buffet and actually helping his secretary. That doesn't sound too stupid to me.
A$$non…do you get a thrill out of this or is it a job?
With troll pay, I'm sure you won't pay ANY taxes anyway…AND get some "Obama Money" on top of that!!
What this has to with anything if the statement was true (and it is not) is beyond me, basically you are saying that Warren owes more money to the government as a percentage of income because …. ?
Now to your lie. The tax rate for 60K in 2008 unadjusted is 15%, so not only is your point not a point but as usual is based on an inflated BS lie.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/taxguide/ta...
Try again retard
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/taxguide/ta...
Flat Tax is the way to go. The purpose of taxes is to generate revenue for the government. That should be it. The flat tax does this. ANYTHING else is social engineering. Does the left truly believe the government is the best way for social change? Unfortunately yes. But the vast majority of Americans know the government is the worst at this task and has the history to prove it.
The problem of a flat tax for liberals is not that it won't fund govmt adequately ( the tax could be raised or lowered as needed ) it's that it would eliminate or severely hamper the ability to buy votes. If they can't buy a vote they will not get it. Their whole platform falls appart with logic applied.
He is saying to make the tax 20% for everyone. No loop holes or tax breaks. So Warren Buffet would pay 20% on his billion and his secretary would pay 20% on her 60 thousand. So Warrens tab would be $200,000,000 and his secretary would pay $12,000.
"The art of taxation lies in plucking the goose so as to get the most amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing" – Finance Minister to Louis XIV.
The problem with the existing tax system is that it distorts the economy by trying to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. Also, it penalizes one group of people in order to subsidize others.
Here's an example: Here in the People's Republic of New York City, we have the highest combined state and local tax burdens. But, I'm able to deduct those taxes from my income which knocks down my federal tax. My Schedule A is nothing but taxes. So I pay less federal tax in a high tax state like New York than I would in a low tax state like Florida on the same income. In effect, the low tax states are subsidizing the reckless tax and spending of the high tax states.
Can you do simple math? A flat tax on a percentage basis means the rich do pay more. The flat tax is both equal and progressive taxation. 15% of a million dollars will always be more than 15% of 50,000 dollars.
It is FACT that the top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 95% of the taxes. If EVERYBODY paid an equal percentage we would take in more revenue and lower taxes for EVERYONE! The progressive tax system we currently have is unfair to everyone, those who earn because they have to pay for those who don't earn and it's unfair to those who don't earn because they learn that if they sit and wait for money to come in they will be ok and they never develop the ability to take care of themselves. That hurts everyone.
You need to wake up and realize that the game is never over.
We lost a battle, you are now helping us to win the war. I love the arrogance of the left it energizes me and I am going to love hearing all the wailing and knashing of teeth from your high priests in the MSM come this November!
Flat tax or fair tax… Either one is better than what we have now. I'll vote for either.
This column exemplifies exactly why the flat tax is better, and why I have supported it all along. The Fair Tax has wiggle room, and politicians are like children, you can't give them wiggle room.
The socialist freight train is rolling, and standing on the tracks to stop it is futile. Like Glenn Beck said, the only thing to do now is learn how to live in poverty and be thankful you are alive. Spending your entire day ensuring you have enough food to avoid starvation is what you will have to consider as your happiness for the day.
Just once I would like to see a thoughthful response from the left. All you have is talking points based on your indoctrination and invective for those who disagree. For all of the "studies" classes offered in school these days maybe you could find your way to a critical thinking class and present ideas for debate. I just don't see you, or your ilk, taking the time.
Enough of this horse manure!!!
A huge number of us have had it up to our eyeballs with this kind of class warfare statement. This country was founded to protect the individual's property rights, but almost half the population now has decided they are justified in stealing the fruits of someone else's labor. These "rich should pay their fair share" arguments are old and tired – and frankly those of us who actually work for what we have are fed up.
Get this through your collectivist head – you are not entitled to what I have worked for! If you are tired of being poor, then do something about it. When there is no longer enough reward for me, I will quit – then where will you be?
You'd have to be as retarded as Dan Mitchell is to support a flat tax. My personal guess is that he's well intentioned but woefully ignorant with no access to any tax software (eg. Tax cheat Timmy Giethner) or Bankrate.com. Here's why (also a hat tip to: Thinking Man above); a "flat" tax simply sets an unavoidable floor on a starting tax rate. Any flat tax scheme is a fool's dream as the tax rate day one will nto be the tax rate day two. Does not anyone else realize that a year into say a 5% flat tax that the corruptocrats in Washington will be screaming and crying for a flat tax increase of 1% 2%… 200% in the "flat" tax to cover "unforseen" or special needs, or "emergencies". Jesus Christ people are you that stupid and inept?
Also if the ignorant flat tax is based upon any form of consumption then I and millions of Americans will just cut back. This will hit the poor and working classes as hard as nearly anything else as they richly deserve for trying to tax me more, so while hilarious from that aspect it is still painful because as the fool Obama realizes if he taxes consumption I'll just save that's why his Osamacare plan taxes investments and "passive" income just like wages. Do imbeciles like Dan Mitchell understand this yet? Do any other retards supporting a "flat" tax not get that a "flat" tax is only good for governement?
Thou shalt not covet!
I call BS. You obviously don't understand the difference between marginal tax rates and average tax rates.
Nobody pays 30% on 60K. It would more likely be around 10-12%. Of course it all depends on whether her husband (if any) works and how much he makes. And how many kids they have. And if they're paying a mortgage. And so on.
Things seem simple only to the simple-minded.
Having lived on both sides of the argument, I'll tell you this:
17% to a family making $20,000 a year is a much harder pill to swallow than 17% to a family making $200,000 a year.
To the "poor family", 17% equals $3,400. When you only bring home $1,667 a month, that's a lot of money. It's baby formula, because Mama has to work and can't breastfeed/pump on the job. It's the gasoline needed to get from cheap housing to the place of employment. It's necessary care and maintenance of automobiles, work wardrobes, etc.
My wife and I were making that much right out of college, both working 40 hours a week. It's not a laziness issue. Yes, lots of people are lazy, but sticking it to them also hurts those who work hard.
it is you- propagandist and provocatuer- who is 'stupid'…
Stupid for thinking anyone will by your DNC talking points as original thought.
Stupid for entering an arena where you cannot intellectually compete
Stupid for believing the dribble you exhort
Stupid for insulting OUR intelligence
And lastly for bringing 'God' into it, heathen…
Most flat tax proposals include an generous exclusion of the first X amount of income. On figure I heard tossed around years ago would exclude the first 32K of income. Using your example, this family would wind up paying nothing.
We will NEVER change the present TAX System,, UNTIL WE CHANGE and REPLACE ""all "" in WASHINGTON DC!!
[...] The Flat Tax: Good for America, Bad for Washington [...]
"With no itemized deductions that secretary is taxed at 14.08% "
You are a moron. Her payroll taxes alone are 7.6%, then state income taxes, local income taxes, and then federal income taxes.
"Warren is free to give whatever he wants to the government but like all leftists talks the talk but does not walk the walk"
Buffett recently donated 37.4 BILLION to charity. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/business/26buff...
God you people are stupid.
Problem with morons like GP is they are too stupid to understand that their beloved "rich" benefactors like Soros, the ones that could be considered the oligarchy, are the one that benefit the most from the repressive taxation we now have. They, along with their army of tax lawyers, special exemptions, foundations and other shelters that enable them to avoid practically ALL taxes, just love the army of slaves they have created who are mouthing their BS as they go after the productive, honest, hard working and moral members of society who excel. They're playing them against us and it has ceased to be tolerable. The pendulum is about to swing back and when it does …
No to mention that people who earn money under the table or through illegitimate means will still pay taxes. If people weould just take the time to read the books instead of parrotting whatever their favorite politician is spouting they would see the benefits in the system to all, including those at the poverty level. Why would a government torture their poplulace every year, forcing them to fight the government and tempting them to use illegitimate means to gain the advantage, thereby resulting in nice fines to grow the coffers or just don't struggle, and pay pay pay. It may even be painless, most politicians wouldn't know.
but you forget, you still get exemptions for family size, so the 17% doesn't start on the first dollar.
and besides, trying to "redistribute" with higher rates on higher income is futile unless you constantly change the rates as transactions tend to go toward supply and demand in any case
I have supported a flat tax since Ronald Reagan introduced it. We can do away with the complicated tax code, the loopholes and an ENTIRE federal agency (employees can be reassigned to other agencies). Tax collection would likely increase, fraud would decrease. People would be encouraged to work harder and keep more of their income. "It's simple economics that a dollar has more value to a poor person"? How's that college degree workin' out for ya? Still living at home with your parents, huh? That's not economics. Redistribution of wealth is socialism. If you want to give your money away, please do. Don't ask me to. I work for my money and nobody deserves it but me.
"Nobody pays 30% on 60K. It would more likely be around 10-12%."
Payroll taxes alone are 7.6%. Then federal, state, and local income taxes.
God you people are stupid.
We must be like Gandhi now…persistent and unyeilding. Washington may not want to allow tax reformation, but they will eventually do it if we never let them rest until it is done. How do you think the left wins arguments?? They persist until they wear down their opponents.
Time for us to become the peskiest b'tards these people have ever been.
While both the Flat Tax or Fair Tax are better than what we have now, if you want to take the power out of Washington and give it back to “We The People”, then doing away with an income tax all together is the way to go. A Consumption Tax gives “We The People” the power. Let government be at the mercy of the people
Correction.
The year in question that Buffetts secretary paid 30% on her $60 thousand was BEFORE THE OBAMA TAX CUTS.
So using last years tax tables would not yield an accurate answer.
She paid $400 less under Obama.
So your logic is to take money from the rich so that the money they keep is worth more to them, which by your argument means they should be taxed less.
Makes sense to a third-grader I suppose.
Okay, big talker. Put your money where your mouth is:
Define "rich".
Define "poor".
Define "fair".
If you weren't just a libtalker "EqualPayGal" you would give your job to someone who didn't have a job, and your car to someone who didn't have one. I bet you have an iPod, a PC, a nice TV and furniture. Go give it away to people less well off than you are, hypocrite!
Flat Tax/Fair TAx is fine by me so long as the 16th Amendment is repealed and the IRS is adjusted to process the new tax revenues. No way can we handle Income and Consumer taxes at the same time.
If we had a flat/fair tax, EVERYONE would be screaming at the gov to quit spending. Spending and debt would absolutely go down. EVERYONE needs a stake in this.
The tax code today is nothing but legalized bribery and threats. It is designed to satisfy class envy, control behavior and win elections. A flat/fair tax would free all of us from those threats and bribes and put power back in the hands of the people.
Did you all know that a flat tax is exactly what is called for in our Constitution? Please review Articles 8 and 9.
Here is what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #36 dated 1/8/1788: ""Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not
to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to
be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the
second section of the first article. An actual census or
enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance
which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The
abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against
with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just
mentioned, there is a provision that “all duties, imposts, and
excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''
LIE, LIE, LIE.
Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/...
"You obviously don't understand the difference between marginal tax rates and average tax rates."
Yes. I do. My education is in accounting. 4 year degree. Big Ten.
Yep, the socialists are crawling out from under their rocks..
When you say "resdistribute," what you mean is "steal."
Never EVER quote Hamilton again. He was a supporter of the Mercantilist system, which is very similar to what we are dealing with today. Strong central government, favors for corporations, internal improvement subsides, etc.
A one-shot refundable credit is not a tax cut. Lying idiot.
I don't know why people -1 your post. The points you are making are valid.
wow, a degree in accounting, and you still can't think. Also, you can't (won't) leave your name
You are stupid
You just proved a point (maybe unknowingly). Yes, you and your wife went through a tough time, but look what hard work has done for you! Hard work is what made the difference between you and others and any "sticking it to" is a temporary condition for those willing to work.
You don't teach people that hard work is the answer if you subsidize laziness and punish success.
"redistribution from the poor to the rich"
WTF???????
"Tax rates are going up like they should for a fair society"
That is a spoiled, bratty child's definition of "fair."
I have been a BIG advocate of the flat-tax system. Some more things it promotes is:
1) More people will be willing to invest as THEY can figure out how much they owe. Today the tax system is a burden on new investors who can't afford expensive tax accountants etc..
2) Small companies will be able to shed their tax accountants and be able to hire more people. Today's system is SO CONVOLUTED its absurd.
3) It ends the "free lunch" that many people see in government. We will ALL have skin in the game now.
Please. Congresscritters live in holy terror of marginal rate increases They do their dirty business by paying off supporters through deductions and credits the general public rarely notices. Eliminating the basic toolbox of corruption is simple common sense.
So you think no one should pay taxes. You probably think crack addicts should stop smoking crack too. And drug dealers should stop selling drugs. And people on welfare should look for a job.
All so Warren Buffet can pay less in taxes.
God you people are stupid.
And we have an impostor. Thank you. It is the ultimate in flattery.
The truth is getting to you that bad huh?
"Payroll taxes alone are 7.6%. Then federal, state, and local income taxes."
Why don't we add in the whole shebang then: Sales tax, property tax, excise tax, gas tax, use tax, etc. Now you're just playing with numbers so you can salvage your original idiotic post.
"My education is in accounting. 4 year degree. Big Ten."
I think you should ask for a refund.
Let's go thorugh this.
Joe the Plumber earned $8,000 in 2007 and paid $400 in taxes.
Joe the Plumber earned $8,000 in 2008 and paid $0 in taxes. Due to Obama's tax cuts.
Yet a one shot refundable credit is not a tax cut.
God you people are stupid.
sooo….. you want what i have worked my ass off for?
"wow, a degree in accounting"
Thank you. It was very hard work and it is something I am quite proud of. And it has helped tremendously in business.
On first read i thought you wrote " marximize social welfare". HA!
"Simple economics" and "we need redistribution to maximize social welfare" should never be in the same sentence. Ever.
I don't think this country would last long if we didn't have any kind of Federal income tax. It is needed for essetial serverices such as police and fire. How would that work in a country with no taxation?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to keep everything I make. I'm truly interested in your ideas here.
One could only hope. However, in todays political climate it just might happen!
"I think you should ask for a refund". LMAO!!!!!!!
OMG! anon is arguing with himself.
I don't think we should penalize success but, at the same time, there is a difference between taxing someone who works hard and makes district manager and taxing someone who is worth billions. I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the flat tax, nor do I understand exactly how it works, but there seems to be something inherently unfair about it. It doesn't seem right that a multi-billionaire should be paying the same tax rate as a middle class family struggling to get by. Promoting the flat tax will certainly not help the GOP win elections and will just make it easier for Democrats to pant them as the party of the rich.
How exactly are you defining "fair society?" Most liberals would define a fair society as one in which everyone is at the exact same level economically. Unfortunately for them, this utopian ideal doesn't take into account that the same level has consistently been the very lowest possible. I'd rather live in an unfair society with the chance to improve my life than some false leftist utopian ideal where dissent is unacceptable and people are treated as nothing more than a source of income for a bloated bureaucracy.
Tax rates going up is, at the most fundamental level, the government depriving me of a portion of my property. Up to a point, this is acceptable, as it is a part of the consent of the governed. When, however, that government (due to corruption or incompetence) misallocates the portion of my property (say for things like booze parties on AF1 or to prop up a failed welfare system) that I willingly parted with, the cries of "unfair" begin to lose their power.
And in 2009?
Bertha the Welfare Queen earned nothing in 2007 and paid paid $0 in taxes.
Bertha the Welfare Queen earned nothing in 2008 and paid $0 in taxes, but
was given a $400 check. Due to Obama's handouts.
Meanwhile, did Joe the Plumber's marginal tax rates go down? No. Did he
move into a lower bracket? No. Was the standard exemption increased? No.
Not a tax cut at all.
By the way, shit-for-brains: who ultimately pays for Obama's monstrous
increases in business taxes? What's that $400 compared to a paitr of
earrings or sneakers for Michelle Antoinette, or the huge tax hike when
the Bush tax cuts expire? And who is going to pay off Obama's utterly
batshit insane deficits?
Yes, "truth"… whatever you say.
Let the states handle taxation. Each state will have its own independent tax policy, and provide the services its citizens seek. Police and fire are currently handled by the states, and will continue to be.
50 states with 50 different tax codes leaves 50 different options for every American. Everyone would be able to move where they saw the best fit. Texas or Nevada might have minimal taxes and services, while Vermont might have high taxes and services.
I'll skip the lecture…
You are quite simply an idiot.
What is the "proper ratio" and who makes that decision? Take the politics out of taxation or scrap the system entirely.
Plus the Fair TAx abolishes the IRS and the taxpayers wouldn't have to shell out cash for tax code compliance.
"What it doesn't do is give the politically connected rich any reason to stop posturing as marxist revolutionaries "
I think your expectations with regards to what a tax policy can do are unrealistic.
But a lot of opinions here trend towards the "laziness must be punished", forgetting that the working poor demographic does actually exist.
"Bertha the Welfare Queen earned nothing in 2008 and paid $0 in taxes, but
was given a $400 check. "
A lie. You did not get a tax credit unless you paid taxes. And if you didn't owe income taxes you still were eligible if you paid payroll taxes.
"Why don't we add in the whole shebang then: Sales tax, property tax, excise tax, gas tax, use tax, etc."
Go for it. It will only make the spread between Buffett and his secretary look even more obscene.
Articles 8 and 9? My Constitution only goes up to Article 7. You must have one of those superduper teaparty constitutions with extra rights for good white people.
Let me explain why you should not go around calling other people stupid.
You obviously cannot see Warren Buffett's hypocrisy on this. First, he structures his income in such a way so that he has the minimum tax liability. Then he crows about how he doesn't pay enough in taxes.
WB can solve that problem all by himself. Take his income as straight salary and he'll be paying a higher rate than his secretary for sure. Or, if he doesn't think he pays enough, cut a check to the treasury for whatever he thinks he should pay.
Payroll \”taxes\” are not taxes, but premiums on Social Security and
Medicare, which are (or pretend to be) a pension plan and an insurance
plan.
If you make $10 million a year you should definitely be for a flat tax system. It will cut your federal tax bill in half and transfer the liability to the middle class. Because let's face it; spending is not going down anytime soon, and we can't tax the poor anymore than we already do… so it's going to be us in the middle who pick up the tab.
And 17 percent is a pipe dream.
It's called "motivation" to move one's self up the economic ladder. Don't cry "equality" when you don't mean it. Everyone must have a vested stake in government, and feel the weight of taxes. It's easy to say "raise taxes" when it doesn't impact you.
The tax foundation which has been around for 75 years (approx ) estimated that the total cost to comply with the federal tax code for 2009 was $347,000,000,000. A simple fixed consumption tax would eliminate almost all of this
idiotic expense and remove from congress the most powerful weapon that it has to extract bribes, reward its friends and punish its enemies. All federal taxes should be banned except for a simple consumption tax. This and eliminating
or drastically reducing many of governments departments and agencies could reduce the budget by over 1 trillion dollars per year ( go to http://www.cato.org ) If this were done our economy would boom, companies would be hiring like crazy and 50% of the population would be producing wealth instead of the 30% we have today ( Bureau of labor statistics) This is the only way we can possibly pay off our national debt. The libs and lackeys would have no more excuses. In order to make this happen we must follow only three rules:
1) never vote for an incumbent
2) never vote for an incumbent
3) never vote for an incumbent
Depending on when you and your wife finished college, $20,000 may or may not have been a bad starting salary, and it was a starting not a lifetime salary. Are you and your wife still earning near that, or have your salaries increased? If they increased, was the increase due to your efforts or someone else's?
Even a flat tax would require some modification. You're right; anyone making $20,000 and paying $3,400 in federal income taxes could not afford to live. And, yes there are a lot of individuals in this country that only earn $20,000 and not as a starting salary. So a flat tax with either an exemption from income taxes for income levels below a certain amount or graduated rates form 1% to the determined flat tax rate on various levels of income until everyone with income over a certain amount is paying the same rate on that over amount of income could be considerations. Graduate the income levels from 0 to $100,000 with rates starting at 1% rates increasing on some increments of income until the $100,000 income level is reached. I think it's a serious long-term detriment to the country, if, as reported, in excess of 40%, and rising, of individuals pay no income tax. We all receive benefits from living in the U.S. and we all should pay something.
You must be logged in to post a comment.