In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the reform...

I know we've had this debate about a million times, but I still need a little clarity. Usually, a thread such as this one ends up to be pages long with numerous hyperlinks to grand theoretical models and drawn-out explanations. Let's try and keep this one simple and sweet, because sometimes less is more.

Let me propose a very simple tax system. All working Americans with a source of income must be required to pay 19% of their income to a federal income tax. No deductions, no write-offs, no national sales tax, no exemptions, no loop-holes. A beautifully simple flat tax code.

State and local governments may devise whatever tax system they feel is necessary. All in all, I argue this is a fair system and 19% is a reasonable percentage of earnings to be paid to the central government (when choosing the state and town where to live, I personally would prefer to pay no more than 23-24% of my income to all levels of government...you can choose to live in a state or city which taxes more).

Just respond with why you think this is not a fair tax system and/or why it wouldn't work and/or why it wouldn't be simple. Please do so using only 3-5 sentences. If you go on for 500 words, you've committed overkill. This thread is not suppose to be a college-level course on taxes, but a simple community survey of a national flat income tax system.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

I know we've had this debate about a million times, but I still need a little clarity. Usually, a thread such as this one ends up to be pages long with numerous hyperlinks to grand theoretical models and drawn-out explanations. Let's try and keep this one simple and sweet, because sometimes less is more.

Let me propose a very simple tax system. All working Americans with a source of income must be required to pay 19% of their income to a federal income tax. No deductions, no write-offs, no national sales tax, no exemptions, no loop-holes. A beautifully simple flat tax code.

State and local governments may devise whatever tax system they feel is necessary. All in all, I argue this is a fair system and 19% is a reasonable percentage of earnings to be paid to the central government (when choosing the state and town where to live, I personally would prefer to pay no more than 23-24% of my income to all levels of government...you can choose to live in a state or city which taxes more).

Just respond with why you think this is not a fair tax system and/or why it wouldn't work and/or why it wouldn't be simple. Please do so using only 3-5 sentences. If you go on for 500 words, you've committed overkill. This thread is not suppose to be a college-level course on taxes, but a simple community survey of a national flat income tax system.

Click to expand...

With the exception of the top 400 richest folks (all who get taxed not on their salary but on the output of their hedge funds) the fact remains that the rich in America get income taxed at a level around 29% while the poor pay virtually zero in income tax and in many cases get the EIC...they get free money as opposed to actually paying taxes. Lowering the rate to a flat 19% would end up in a tremendous reduction in the amount of current tax revenue. And of course...insisting that the bottom 50% pay their 'fair share'...come on...how well is THAT going to fly? The screaming of course begins when the low to no income folks start making their pretentious claims that you cant really discuss fair shares and tax rates because the poor pay 'more' in other taxes. Another foolish argument...but hey...anything to muddy up the water.

Where your program would work is if there were an across the board 10% tax rate and all social services were gutted along with redundant federal programs and those programs were then turned over to the states.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

The flat tax is a bad idea because taking 19% from a person who earns $30,000 a year will make a much bigging impact than taking 19% from someone who earns 300,000 a yr. Example: 30,000 - 19% (5700) = 24, 300. compared to 300,000 - 19% (57000) = 243,000.

The answer is a fair tax which taxes spending not income. Keep what you earn and how much you're taxed is controlled by your spending. This taxes corporations and billionaers to illegals and everyone inbetween and prevents the feds from picking winners and losers.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

I am against a flat tax on both sides of the spectrum.

First of all, I think it'd be borderline inhumane to not have a cutoff. People who make under 20K a year really should be exempt. They pay enough in taxes along the way for other things besides income.

On the other end (and this is where most disagree with me), you cannot just create a flat tax rate for corporations, the high bracket, and employers because they are given tax breaks to incentivize certain actions they otherwise might not take. Maybe it's a scholarship program for employees and non-employees. Maybe it's private charitable organizations. Maybe it's not outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labor. Maybe it's to perform research and development (capitalization vs. expense argument).

A flat tax might go well on paper and sound simple, but it would have negative ramifications in other aspects.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Progressive taxation is neccesary to redistribute income and wealth, assuming that we don't have a 100% inheritance tax. Money and wealth pools just like water does. Without progressive taxation ultimately a few families end up with all wealth and capitalism ends. If we had a 100% inheritance tax, then we would have less of a need for a progressive income tax.

The progressive income tax system also tends to even out the amount of effort that it takes to acquire wealth. It is very difficult for the minimum wage worker to save money. Since the minimum wage worker can't save much money, he can't invest much, and thus his income acquiring ability is limited to the sweat of his own labor. Someone with a very high income can easily save money, and thus can make passive investments, from which he can acquire more income without having to invest his own labor. The higher ones personal income and wealth, the easier each additional dollar is to create. In other words, it's a heck of a lot easier for a millionare to make an "extra" million bucks than it is a poor person - to the point where it may be virtually impossible for that poor person to acquire a million dollars in a lifetime. The progressive income tax system, if it taxed investment income at the same rate as work income, would help to equalize how "easy" it is to aquire an additional buck of net worth.

The progressive income tax system possibly allows for employers to pay lower salaries to consumer class workers. There is an amount of take home pay that anything less than that there is little point in working. The progressive income tax creates an incentive for lower paid workers to work. Without this incentive, many workers would choose to not work, which would create upward pressures on wages. The higher wages would come directly out of the pocket of the rich - essentially offseting any tax savings that they would have in a flat tax system.

Taxes other than income taxes tend to be regressive in terms of % of income. In otherwords, the lower ones income, the higher percentage of their income they pay in taxes other than income tax. Someone making $50k per year may pay $2,000 in property tax (directly or indirectly), $2400 in sales tax, $500 in autmotive taxes, and $6000 in total witholdings taxes (medicare/ss). That works out to nearly 22% taxes excluding income tax. While the someone making $500k per year may only spend $4,000 in property tax, $1000 in automotive taxes, and $12000 in withholdings taxes - that works out to just 3.5% non-income tax taxation. So to even out our tax burdon in terms of percentage of income, income tax has to be progressive.

Humans are naturally compassionate. If we were to tax the poor and working poor at a higher rate, it would be our tendancy to provide more wellfare and saftey nets as more would be required to offset the higher tax rate. At that point, we would have to raise taxes to pay for the higher amount of wellfare, and then higher tax rate would then require more welfare, which would require a higher tax rate, and more welfare... on and on ad infinatem.

Now assuming that we had a reasonable income exemption, like $20k, I wouldn't be against a flat rate tax, assuming that all forms of income were taxed at the same rate. Using the 19% example, most uber rich people would pay more in taxes than they do now. Of course that defeats the intent of people who push for a flat tax. The flat tax is all about the rich paying less. Thats why no flat tax supporters are willing to include capital gains in the flat tax.

Anyhow, the $20k exemption would create two tax brackets. The 0% and the X%. Lower wage workers would then be incentivised not to make more than $20k, which would then add to our poverty problem. What I would prefer is a flat tax with a $500k exemptions. Yes, $500k. $500k is about the maximum that working people make from actual labor. It's $100k over the average salary for surgeons and MD specialists. It's 4 times the average salary for family doctors, nearly 6 times the earnings of the average attorney. It's $100k over the start of the top 1%. It's basically the amount, above which one is not neccesarally earning money, but simply acquiring money. Above that amount, it's essentially EXCESS income. So why not just tax excess income? Two income tax brackets, the below $500k bracket would be 0%, and the above $500k bracket would be whatever it takes, as little as possible, to balance our budget. If that's 10% or 50% or 92% then so be it.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Income distribution in the U.S. means that any flat tax would have to be somewhat close to the marginal rate in a progressive system. That means a massive tax increase on households who spend their income primarily on consumer goods. That decreases demand for consumer goods and has a significant negative effect on the economy. The lower standard of living for most of the country would also lead to social unrest, compounded by the economic loss.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Gipper said:

I am against a flat tax on both sides of the spectrum.

First of all, I think it'd be borderline inhumane to not have a cutoff. People who make under 20K a year really should be exempt. They pay enough in taxes along the way for other things besides income....

Click to expand...

Flat Tax Ridiculous On it's Face.
And yes we have had the discussion 100+ times. Better to look up the old/even recent ones instead of start string number #879.
And Yes, without say at least a $30k cutoff, It's Absurd.

The Average wage at Walmart, our largest private employer, is $12 an hour, $25,000 a year.
Having that worker pay 19% Federal tax, in addition to at least 6% State Sales Tax (and state income tax converted to sales tax to make the system viable) Results in that Walmarter paying At Least 25%, $6250 in Taxes!
Instant working poor, if they can even afford to get to work any more.

Here in NYC we have an 8.875% Sales Tax and a State Income Tax that would have to be converted To sales tax which would result in something like a 13% overall State sales tax rate.
Added to the 19% Federal.
32%

Even at 19% It's beyond ridiculous to think it could work.
It's a Gigantic Regressive, REVERSE STIMULOUS Program. Instant Depression, poverty/homelessness.
Those people who benefit from the 600/1200 checks we (Both parties agree are needed) and send out to stimulate the economy occassionally, would have those same people Instead send 5x that amount To the govt.
Sure that works.
The people at the bottom, say under 30k, already have NO money.
Walmart tells us there shoppers are "running out of money", putting necessities on Credit Cards because they can't afford them.

The OP basically wants to take an additional $4000-$5,000 out of every lower/middle income families pocket to pay for a Cut for Top incomes.
It's Inhumane and put Millions in the street.
Of course that's why it won't happen. It's ridiculous on it's face.

See http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
For a discussion of who can afford to pay any increase At All.
Any/All Regressive tax are Reverse stimulous programs at best.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Lesismor said:

The answer is a fair tax which taxes spending not income. Keep what you earn and how much you're taxed is controlled by your spending. This taxes corporations and billionaers to illegals and everyone inbetween and prevents the feds from picking winners and losers.

Click to expand...

It also ensures that people like me NEVER PURCHASE A SINGLE ITEM THAT WE DO NOT ACTUALLY NEED. That sort of system would definitely help my bank account, because I would be doing almost no NON-ESSENTIAL spending of money.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

I know we've had this debate about a million times, but I still need a little clarity. Usually, a thread such as this one ends up to be pages long with numerous hyperlinks to grand theoretical models and drawn-out explanations. Let's try and keep this one simple and sweet, because sometimes less is more.

Let me propose a very simple tax system. All working Americans with a source of income must be required to pay 19% of their income to a federal income tax. No deductions, no write-offs, no national sales tax, no exemptions, no loop-holes. A beautifully simple flat tax code.

State and local governments may devise whatever tax system they feel is necessary. All in all, I argue this is a fair system and 19% is a reasonable percentage of earnings to be paid to the central government (when choosing the state and town where to live, I personally would prefer to pay no more than 23-24% of my income to all levels of government...you can choose to live in a state or city which taxes more).

Just respond with why you think this is not a fair tax system and/or why it wouldn't work and/or why it wouldn't be simple. Please do so using only 3-5 sentences. If you go on for 500 words, you've committed overkill. This thread is not suppose to be a college-level course on taxes, but a simple community survey of a national flat income tax system.

Click to expand...

I think it would be fine depending on the definition of income

If dividends, realized capitalized gains, asset transfers (ie gifts, inheritance) along with salaries and wages are classed as income it would be fine in my opinion.

I personally would include that no taxes are paid on the first $12 000 of income however

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Tigger said:

It also ensures that people like me NEVER PURCHASE A SINGLE ITEM THAT WE DO NOT ACTUALLY NEED. That sort of system would definitely help my bank account, because I would be doing almost no NON-ESSENTIAL spending of money.

Click to expand...

So living like a miser would somehow improve your standard of living? You are perfectly welcome to do that now, and it will still help your bank account. You could grow your own food, have your own cows and chickens, weave your own textiles and turn them into clothing, give up your car and walk everywhere, not spend a penny on electronics, or electricity. Yes, stone age living has a certain appeal. Who needs modern convieniences?

Of course if we had the "fair tax" whenever you go to spend that larger bank account, you would be taxed 30%. A 30% sales tax would essentially devalue your money by 30%.

Is penalizing commerce by 30% really going to help our economy or create jobs? Do we really want to go back to the lifestyle of the good ole days? I don't know what industry you are in, but personally I prefer my job over spending hours picking beans in my garden and having to slaughter my own pick just to get a slice of bacon for breakfast.

Just remember that whatever product or service that you currently make your living from may very well be one of the ones that get's cut back on. How much will unemployment help your bank account?

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

imagep said:

So living like a miser would somehow improve your standard of living? You are perfectly welcome to do that now, and it will still help your bank account. You could grow your own food, have your own cows and chickens, weave your own textiles and turn them into clothing, give up your car and walk everywhere, not spend a penny on electronics, or electricity. Yes, stone age living has a certain appeal. Who needs modern convieniences?

Click to expand...

Living like a miser would keep that money out of the hands of the Government, which would be the whole point. Food, lodging, transportation, and clothing are ESSENTIALS; and while they would be severely cut back that spending would have to continue. However, essentially anything more than those four items would be GONE from the budget. No entertainment budget, no travel, no vacations, no unnecessary spending.

imagep said:

Of course if we had the "fair tax" whenever you go to spend that larger bank account, you would be taxed 30%. A 30% sales tax would essentially devalue your money by 30%.

Click to expand...

Again, other than those four items there wouldn't be any spending. That's what I'm getting at.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Tigger said:

Living like a miser would keep that money out of the hands of the Government, which would be the whole point. Food, lodging, transportation, and clothing are ESSENTIALS; and while they would be severely cut back that spending would have to continue. However, essentially anything more than those four items would be GONE from the budget. No entertainment budget, no travel, no vacations, no unnecessary spending.

Click to expand...

You don't like entertainment?

Again, other than those four items there wouldn't be any spending. That's what I'm getting at.

Click to expand...

So everyone who doesn't work for the government, or in the food, lodging, transportation or clothing business looses their job? Is that a good thing? Which one of those industries do you work in?

Personally, I enjoy my modern convieniences, and I enjoy having a job, even though I don't work in any of those industries.

I also believe in capitalism and the diversity of goods and services that result from capitalism. I am totally against penalizing free trade. I don't need any money that I feel that I can never spend because if I do I will be taxed. Some people may even suggest that it is a sin to put money above everything else, and hording money that never get's spent does little to improve our lives. I mean what good is it if I have a zillion dollars in the bank, if I can never spend it because I don't want the gov to get any of my money? The love of money, just for the sake of money, which you never spend, sounds like greed to me.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

mbig said:

Flat Tax Ridiculous On it's Face.
And yes we have had the discussion 100+ times. Better to look up the old/even recent ones instead of start string number #879.
And Yes, without say at least a $30k cutoff, It's Absurd.

The Average wage at Walmart, our largest private employer, is $12 an hour, $25,000 a year.
Having that worker pay 19% Federal tax, in addition to at least 6% State Sales Tax (and state income tax converted to sales tax to make the system viable) Results in that Walmarter paying At Least 25%, $6250 in Taxes!
Instant working poor, if they can even afford to get to work any more.

Here in NYC we have an 8.875% Sales Tax and a State Income Tax that would have to be converted To sales tax which would result in something like a 13% overall State sales tax rate.
Added to the 19% Federal.
32%

Even at 19% It's beyond ridiculous to think it could work.
It's a Gigantic Regressive, REVERSE STIMULOUS Program. Instant Depression, poverty/homelessness.
Those people who benefit from the 600/1200 checks we (Both parties agree are needed) and send out to stimulate the economy occassionally, would have those same people Instead send 5x that amount To the govt.
Sure that works.
The people at the bottom, say under 30k, already have NO money.
Walmart tells us there shoppers are "running out of money", putting necessities on Credit Cards because they can't afford them.

The OP basically wants to take an additional $4000-$5,000 out of every lower/middle income families pocket to pay for a Cut for Top incomes.
It's Inhumane and put Millions in the street.
Of course that's why it won't happen. It's ridiculous on it's face.

See http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html
For a discussion of who can afford to pay any increase At All.
Any/All Regressive tax are Reverse stimulous programs at best.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You want to know a secret? I actually do support a cutoff! Now, what do you have to say? It appears that the absence of the cutoff was the only principle you generated evidence to argue.

The fact that you claim a flat tax will cause instant depressions is laughable. I know why you don't disclose your lean. :lol:

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

Hmmm. You want to know a secret? I actually do support a cutoff! Now, what do you have to say? It appears that the absence of the cutoff was the only principle you generated evidence to argue.

The fact that you claim a flat tax will cause instant depressions is laughable. I know why you don't disclose your lean. :lol:

Click to expand...

Do you support capital gains and all other forms of income being taxed at the same rate, and without deductions other than an equal exemption? And how much should that exemption be? One poster suggested $12k, $20k gets suggested more frequently, but personally I am for the exemption being much higher. Doesn't an exemption create an artificial amount, above which people will feel penilized for? If we are going to penalize people for making more than a certain amount, then why should it be near the poverty level? Why not more like the median income of near $50k or the mean income of near $150k, or the maximum income that is within the norm ($400k)?

I seem to remember that TD has said that he wouldn't support capital gains being taxed at the same rate as earned income, and that he would expect special deductions for his charitable giving. Do you support special deductions or a lower rate for unearned income (investments, gifts, inheritance, etc)?

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Yes, I would support different rates for different types of income, specifically lower rates for income that implies risk.

Tell you what - I'll support capital gains being taxed at a rate similar to income if you support capital losses being a direct reduction in liability instead of an income adjustment.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Gipper said:

Yes, I would support different rates for different types of income, specifically lower rates for income that implies risk.

Tell you what - I'll support capital gains being taxed at a rate similar to income if you support capital losses being a direct reduction in liability instead of an income adjustment.

Click to expand...

So you want to socialize investment losses?

I never figured you for a socialist.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

.

Gipper said:

Yes, I would support different rates for different types of income, specifically lower rates for income that implies risk.

Tell you what - I'll support capital gains being taxed at a rate similar to income if you support capital losses being a direct reduction in liability instead of an income adjustment.

Click to expand...

If I am not mistake capital loss's carry toward to offset capital gains. Unless one is truly a horrible investor that should be the only thing required regarding capital losses.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

I know we've had this debate about a million times, but I still need a little clarity. Usually, a thread such as this one ends up to be pages long with numerous hyperlinks to grand theoretical models and drawn-out explanations. Let's try and keep this one simple and sweet, because sometimes less is more.

Let me propose a very simple tax system. All working Americans with a source of income must be required to pay 19% of their income to a federal income tax. No deductions, no write-offs, no national sales tax, no exemptions, no loop-holes. A beautifully simple flat tax code.

Click to expand...

In the most simplistic terminology:

These are massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive tax hikes for the poor.

Tax reform is necessary, but a flat tax isn't a route I would choose.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Bardo said:

In the most simplistic terminology:

These are massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive tax hikes for the poor.

Tax reform is necessary, but a flat tax isn't a route I would choose.

Click to expand...

Cuz...having everyone pay an equal share wouldnt be quite the same as having everyone pay their 'fair share'. I think we have just about put that whole 'fair share' argument on the scrap heap where it belongs.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

imagep said:

You don't like entertainment?.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. The point isn't to horde the money, it's to keep the tax revenue out of the hands of a Government that has proven it cannot spend properly, or within any form of restraints.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

Tigger said:

I think you missed the point. The point isn't to horde the money, it's to keep the tax revenue out of the hands of a Government that has proven it cannot spend properly, or within any form of restraints.

Click to expand...

I must still be missing the point. So you are saying that you had rather have a low standard of living than for our government to get any revenue? Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite someone elses face?

Heck, I would love to have to pay millions of dollars in taxes, as that would mean that I was RICH! I like having nice things and a nice standard of living, and I don't mind paying for my share of the cost of our government, because I know that it is our government that allows me to have a job, and personal safety, and to have roads, and a viable banking and monetary system, etc.

Have you ever considered moving to a country with less government? Like maybe people in Somolia or the Congo have it so much better than we do.

I have an idea for ya...Since you will not be spending any of that money, you could just donate all of it to charity and get a tax deduction and pay even less taxes! Or just quit your job and suck off of the taxpayer like so many others do!

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

an flat tax would destroy the ability of dems to use income taxes to buy votes. that is why the dems' biggest toadies on this board hate the flat tax. With a flat tax dem politicians could not promise their minions more spending that the minions wouldn't have to pay for. If the masses want to soak the rich, they will have to raise the forfeit the same amount from their next dollar as the rich

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

Hmmm. You want to know a secret? I actually do support a cutoff! Now, what do you have to say? It appears that the absence of the cutoff was the only principle you generated evidence to argue.

The fact that you claim a flat tax will cause instant depressions is laughable. I know why you don't disclose your lean. :lol:

Click to expand...

Without the cutoff it WOULD cause a depression.
The Cutoff you didn't mention in your OP.
Of course, "your welcome" for me giving you your New position even though you claimed it wasn't.
If it was always your position you couldn't have left it off, as it's Essential.

We are in a Recession. Say take 19% MORE off every family's income under 30k. That would Certainly cause a depression.
It's wholesale Bloodshed, meaning No Computers, Cars, Houses, Food, Prescriptions for many.
Consumer spending already dead.
As I said.. a giant REVERSE STIMULOUS Program
Those people we sent 600/1200 checks to every few years now would have to cough up 5000.
Depression definitely
The only thing laughable, as always, is your empty declaration.
If the country is reeling and 47% pay no Income Tax (tho other Fed and tate taxes) what do you think would happen if they all Had to pay 20% more.

And of course we now have to make an Adjustment and Raise your 19% to pay for all the Under $30k crowd Dropped form the roles. Correct?
So say 25% is your new rate adjusting for your original blunder.

And everyone who responded prior to you agreeing to a $30K cutoff should have to re-post/give their opinion again as it may change with that bitsy detail.
A Flat tax to many IS/WAS a way to get those little fellas to cough up some dough.
ie.
Turtle Dude... What say you?
30k Deductable or Get all them citizens you're complaining about Every day to ante up "their fair share"!
LOL

It's doable but still somewhat regressive (as opposed unworkable regressive or Progressive where top rates kick in at 250k rather than a 30k cutoff), and with that rate kind of loses attraction.
Of course we also don't know alot else about your pulled-from-a-hat rate as you're not really up on the small details.
You haven't shown your number would be short on revs or not- or whether things like Corp tax would still exist. It looks like you are getting rid of Cap Gains/Divs, Estate Tax etc too. But again it's vague.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

mbig said:

Without the cutoff it WOULD cause a depression.
The Cutoff you didn't mention in your OP.
Of course, "your welcome" for me giving you your New position even though you claimed it wasn't.
If it was always your position you couldn't have left it off, as it's Essential.

We are in a Recession. Say take 19% MORE off every family's income under 30k. That would Certainly cause a depression.
It's wholesale Bloodshed, meaning No Computers, Cars, Houses, Food, Prescriptions for many.
Consumer spending already dead.
As I said.. a giant REVERSE STIMULOUS Program
Those people we sent 600/1200 checks too now would have to cough up 5000.
Depression definitely
The only think laughable, as always, is your empty declaration.

And of course we now have to make an Adjustment and Raise your 19% to pay for all the Under $30k crowd Dropped form the roles. Correct?
So say 25% is your new rate adjusting for your original blunder.

It's doable but still somewhat regressive (as opposed unworkable regressive or Progressive where top rates kick in at 250k rather than a 30k cutoff), and with that rate kind of loses attraction.
Of course we also don't know alot else about your pulled-from-a-hat rate as you're not really up on the small details.
You haven't shown your number would be short on revs or not- or whether things like Corp tax would still exist. It looks like you are getting rid of Cap Gains/Divs, Estate Tax etc too. But again it's vague.

Click to expand...

I intentionally left out the cut off principle just to simplify the discussion. I didn't want to respond to accusations of hypocrisy for allowing a single exemption in an otherwise completely flat tax.

It's not uncommon for someone to propose the far end of a proposal in order to meet in the middle with their opponents. I realize a compromise will be made somewhere. The cutoff rate (to also answer another poster), IMHO would be $30,000 for single individuals and about $60,000 for families of 2-3, $80,000 for families of 4, and $150,000 for families of five or more. These are the first rates I scooped out of my head, but I feel they are extremely fair. I would still keep the rate at 19%. I make less than $20,000 by myself last year and I paid about 12% in federal taxes. I don't believe critics who say that an individual can't live on less than 30K a year when I living my life on less than 20K a year.

Re: In the most simplest fashion, explain why a flat tax would not be worth the refor

ElijahGalt said:

I intentionally left out the cut off principle just to simplify the discussion. I didn't want to respond to accusations of hypocrisy for allowing a single exemption in an otherwise completely flat tax.

It's not uncommon for someone to propose the far end of a proposal in order to meet in the middle with their opponents. I realize a compromise will be made somewhere. The cutoff rate (to also answer another poster), IMHO would be $30,000 for single individuals and about $60,000 for families of 2-3, $80,000 for families of 4, and $150,000 for families of five or more. These are the first rates I scooped out of my head, but I feel they are extremely fair. I would still keep the rate at 19%. I make less than $20,000 by myself last year and I paid about 12% in federal taxes. I don't believe critics who say that an individual can't live on less than 30K a year when I living my life on less than 20K a year.

Click to expand...

Your a college student right? The financial needs of a college student don't compare to after college needs. All of a sudden you realize that you need to be saving for a down payment on a house, you need to purchase your own car, pay for your own car and health insurance, then you need to purchase a refridgerator, and a stove, and a washer and drier, a lawn mower, a weedeater, furniture, saving for a emergency fund, saving for retirement, etc - the type of things that college students don't worry about. Please understand that I am not cutting down your lifestyle as I have "done that and been there", but your lifestyle is temporary as you are preparing yourself for a higher income later, and when you find that higher income, you will also find more expenses.