2006-09-28 12:40:49 · 5 answers · asked by Random Precision 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The answer depends on your level of income; opponents of the flat tax conclude that it is deceptive to advertise that tax as fair, when in fact it shifts the tax burden from the well off to the middle class. Schemes such as "flat rate taxes", therefore, are said to be irresponsible at a global level, even if they may seem to grant a temporary advantage at a national level.
2006-09-28 14:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by www.lvtrafficticketguy.com 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it wouldn't (would NOT). It would be better to tax nothing on the first $15,000 earned in a year, then have a low rate up to $25,000, a moderate rate up to $60,000, a high rate up to $120,000, and the highest rate beyond that.
The tax break for the wealthy has gotten us an unbalanced budget with massive federal deficits every year.
2006-09-28 19:57:51 · answer #2 · answered by Robert B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes and it would put an end to the IRS. Have them take the % out of every check and forget April 15th. Now get it through congress.
2006-09-28 19:45:48 · answer #3 · answered by razeumright 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and it would simplify all the tax amendments, preparation, deductions, etc. etc.
2006-09-28 19:50:12 · answer #4 · answered by beez 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it would. a flat tax would be much simpler also
2006-09-28 19:43:18 · answer #5 · answered by SKYDOGSLIM 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋