Do you believe in a flat % federal income tax rate?

Answer 1

Maybe. There are good arguments for both sides. The current tax system is too complicated - taxpayers waste too much money paying people like me to figure it out for them.

Nonsense about the rich using more of the gov't services than the poor. The rich pay for their own health care, private schooling, college tuition (sans gov't aid), transportation, etc. The poor rely on gov't services a great deal. The rich also pay for the national defense, while the poor are paid to defend the nation. (hold the flames - you know it's true.) In a strictly utilitarian sense, we should have a regressive tax system rather than the seemingly progressive one we have now. That's why it always cracks me up to see a lower income person with a Republican bumper sticker. Thank you, whoever you are.

However, there are also good reasons to shift wealth from the top to the bottom (via taxes to pay for gov't services). The greater the wealth gap, the more problems you create. (has anyone read up on the causes for national revolutions?)

The notion of 90% taxes on the rich is grossly oppressive. People have a right to be successful, if they are capable, without punititive taxation. 90% taxes would be good incentive for tax evasion, or a disincentive to work hard, neither of which are good things.

Answer 2

Let's say that there ends up being a flat federal tax rate of 15%. Sounds good right? Well, what about the social security and Medicare tax rates? From what I have read, I don't think that social security and Medicare tax rates are included in any flat federal income tax rate proposals.

For 2007 the social security and Medicare tax rates are a combined amount of 7.65% for people who receive W-2 wages. Add a federal flat tax rate of 15% and now you are up to 22.65% with NO deductions to help you lower your total tax rate.

It gets even worse for self-employed individuals as the combined social security and Medicare tax rate amount would be 15.3%, and after adding a federal flat tax rate of 15% the total tax rate would be 30.3%, again with NO deductions available.

I have read a few proposals with some limited deductions available; but, I just don't see how a flat tax could be implemented in order to be fair. For example, self-employed people or people who own rental property usually depreciate items over a set number of years? So, if a flat tax is implemented then all of sudden, you are told, sorry you can't take the rest of your depreciation. This is just another problem in trying to come up with a fair flat tax.

I just do not see how a flat federal income tax rate is a good idea. However, I do believe that the tax system is too complex and certainly out of hand, but a flat tax is NOT the way to go. A simpler tax system would make more sense, but this would take a lot to accomplish and also has a myriad of problems in order to make the tax system more fair then it is currently.

This quote refers to the tax rates for Social Security and Medicare for 2007 and was used in my calculations above - "The Social Security tax rate is not automatically adjusted and remains 6.2 percent, payable by employees and employers, each. (The self-employed pay both halves of this tax.) Since 1994, the Medicare tax applies to all earnings without any limit; the Medicare tax rate for 2007 remains 1.45 percent for employers and employees, each." (Social Security wages do have an earning limit and are currently capped at $97,500.)

Answer 3

Personally, yes, I do believe in a flat tax, equitable across the board.

All of the stupid tax rules we have are becoming oppressive (and I'm a CPA candidate--I actually understand them). Citizens should NEVER be forced into a position of having to get professional help each year to take care of personal business. It represents an undue burden.

People should also not ever have to fear being penalized for a tax code that no one can understand completely. The tax code is disputed all the time in tax courts, and the rulings are often subjective.

However, I don't mind having a zero bracket at the bottom, as we have now. The personal exemptions, standard deduction, and child credits offer a nice freedom from taxes for poor families. With a 10% or 15% flat tax across the board, we'll more than make up for these who don't pay, and there is still plenty of incentive for Americans to perform and advance in their careers.

Answer 4

Yes.

I believe our tax code is too complex, burdensome, contain too many loopholes and is just a pain in the rear.

A flat tax would make everything more equitable and reduce the time of preparing taxes from hours to minutes.

Now I believe this raises a more interesting question: Will it ever be implemented?

In that case, no. The mortgage deductions, tax credits, deferred gains, personal residence sale exemptions, etc, etc etc, etc, etc are items that American's may not want to see go away. And they would under a flat tax.

Plus, all the CPA's, Tax Lawyers and Tax Preparation firms would lobby very heavily against this. Also, the tax code only hits American's once a year, so it's only complained about primarily once a year.

I hope that answered your question.

Answer 5

I do not.

I believe that the 900 odd billionaires should be
contributing a lot more than 15% of their income and
the people who are starving should be contributing
a lot less.

Yes, Bill Gates should have a 90%+ income tax.

Answer 6

Hell no! Only the wealthiest would get any benefit from a flat tax. The middle class would bear the brunt of the load and the working poor would be devastated.

Answer 7

I believe that I have never seen ir been shown a law requiring payment of income tax at all.




;-0

Answer 8

tax should not be levied on any form of income. that stifles productivity and makes people lazy and cheaters. tax should be based on what people consume--all goods and services. this concept is explained at fairtax.org
your congressmen don't want you to know about this brilliant concept, because it means they lose control of YOUR money.

Answer 9

No. Most of government's benefits truly go to the affluent, they should pay the bulk of the expense.

Answer 10

Seems fair to me.