2007-05-30 08:48:07 · 11 answers · asked by Robert S 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
'Flat tax' could mean a lot of things. At it's most basic - a flat % tax on all income, regardless of source, amount or expenses incurred in acquiring that income - it could place an undue burden on the poor, and destroy many businesses (those with narrow profit margins). If implemented with a minimum income that goes untaxed, you can deal with the former. Any attempt to avoid the latter, though, opens up loopholes that could be used by those with the propper resources to evade, or legally avoid, paying thier full share of the tax.
VAT (Value-Added Taxes, like sales tax at all levels of production) have also been called 'flat' but tend to be regressive.
2007-05-30 08:53:12 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Initially it sounds great. And may have potential with a flat tax within a range.
Presume tax on everyone is 10% (for easy figuring), the single mom who barely makes 30,000 a year would pay 3000 in tax leaving her with 27,000 to pay rent, utilities, buy food clothing and transportation for herself and her kids. Unless she lives somewhere that has very cheap rent she is already in trouble. Now take the millionaire. He makes 1,000,000 anually and his tax would be 100,000. It seems like a lot of money and to most people that is. However one should ask how difficult is it going to be for that millionaire to put food on the table, have a car or house to live in. Do you think there would be a problem living on 900,000 a year? So he has to forego purchasing his second house on Majorca or the new yacht but he can go home to a warm, house with plenty of nice clothes and food enough to eat and not worry where the next meal is coming from.
There are far more people like the lady in my example than the man. Think about it.
2007-05-30 15:58:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
A flat tax is good.
The fair tax is better.
Either would be a significant improvement over the current tax code.
2007-05-30 15:54:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on which side puts the specific flat tax plan together.
I'd generally support it if it is SIMPLE and doesnt have a thousand pages of unmanagable exceptions.
2007-05-30 16:05:43 · answer #4 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should do a universal national sales tax, let's say 3%. That way the wealthy, who buy the most expensive things, will be taxed the most and those who buy less will be taxed less.
2007-05-30 15:52:22 · answer #5 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm for it... looking at my last pay check the feds took 26% of what i made... how about a flat tax to lower that so the super rich can stop using accounting tricks and pay up
2007-05-30 15:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by deezNutz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Flat? Tax? Sounds like flat ***. That's how I like em. I love to stick the redlog tree way up into that forest, till all the little poo critters get stuck on it.
2007-05-30 15:51:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It is stupid. Why would you charge a person who makes $15,000 a year the same as you charge a person who makes $250,000? That is a terrible system, and it would enlarge the gap between the rich and the poor. A flat tax system is a terrible idea!!!!!
2007-05-30 15:56:58 · answer #8 · answered by sportsfreak 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I think it could work.......of course I do think that everything below the poverty level shouldnt be taxed at all
2007-05-30 15:50:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And the award for "dumbest post ever by user who doesn't get it" goes to -sportsfreak-.
Henry VIII: In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
2007-05-30 15:58:37 · answer #10 · answered by goldspider79 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋