Why we need a flat tax.

[Squilliam]

mrstickball said:

A few thoughts by myself:

1. A flat tax system wouldn't bring in less revenue, it would bring in more. You see, the thing about taxation in America is that no one actually pays what they are supposed to. A rich person does not pay 40% of his taxes. He pays 40% less what he can cheat out of the government via accounting, record as a loss (which is easier when your rich), and get back in tax credits. The poor do this as well with tax credits. After all, my poor friends still get back thousands of USD come tax time because they 'paid too much into the system'. A flat tax system should, if implemented right, remove loopholes from the rich, ensuring they do pay in what's required. We always call out the wealthy for having 99% of wealth in America. Under a flat tax system, they pay that 99% out. I think that's fair.
2. We still need some sort of progression under a flat tax system, because some poor would still be hurt via a regressive cost of living. I believe the way to do this is incorporate a negative income tax plus flat tax system as proposed by Milt Friedman, one of the greatest free market economists in our history. Under a NIT, each family would start off with a tax burden of -$10,000 per year. Under a 30% flat tax, a person would need to make $39,000 per year to 'pay back' the taxes. Anything more, and you get taxed normally. Anything less, and you get it back. No real need to burden the IRS with needless paperwork.
3. It would help the government budget better. The problem that we see is that no matter what, tax revenue never seems to be proportionate to any sort of solid metric - income, GDP, ect. With a flat tax, we can tie taxation into such a system, thereby forcing the govenment to budget better, or raise taxes on everyone. Not just the poor or rich.
4. A flat tax does benefit the poor. As stated, with a negative income tax, the rich that actually pay taxes now would be less burdened, while the evaders pay more. This benefits us all.

I agree with those that are saying that flat tax burdens the poor because....It does. Currently, the poor are allowed 5,000 loopholes from child credits to work credits, to god-knows-whatelse credit which allow the worst offenders to get thousands of dollars back for bad and stupid behavior. We need to eliminate that, and give them a very simple exemption: Work, and you get $10,000 a year, less the 30% tax rate. I think such a thing as the NIT would allow for the least progression. I believe that everyone does have a civil duty to pay taxes: poor and rich alike, so such a thing as an NIT allows the poor to participate in taxation, and for their voices to be heard, as an increase in tax rates would effect them just as much.

Going back to the rich: The fact of the matter is (again), they don't actually pay 35% or 40%. They get many exemptions. If you take away their exemptions, but offer a slightly lower tax rate, you will tax them more, but do it in a much more evenhanded manner.

 

I do like it! Simple and fair is what I see with that. Though one severe downside to what I've seen you post in the past is that I would suspect there could be a severe drop in charity payments under such a system as charity is used as one of the loopholes. I suspect you have an answer to this issue as you've been a proponent of charity in the past?

Well written post! I do enjoy your posts even though I like to disagree sometimes.

@Slimebeast: You are Swe, therefore you are awesome. Swe is > all people in the world. Therefore don't complain, move to countries where being Swe is worshiped and you'll do great.

@HappySquirrel:

Thats the exactly same line of thought I had with regards to controling house prices. The only difference is that I go further and I would require that 'investment' properties have an even lower debt/equity ratio because the big concern I have is that it would encourage rampant home 'investment' by individuals which I would prefer to discourage. Its due to the fact that initially before people adjusted, the only people with the enourmous capital required to invest in homes would be those who already have a home.

Buying a house isn't nearly as productive for the economy as say investing in an economically viable windfarm or factory. Its something which annoys me about my country, getting into such a bad debt/GDP ratio over something as trivial and non productive as a huge, palatial home.