Does anyone really think a flat tax will be better?

Question

Or that it would pass?

What a joke. Taxing is one of the greatest ways to influence social policy. Plus, how many people would be put out of work?

Answer 1

No, but the fair tax would be better.

Answer 2

I Have noticed that some people get the flat tax and the fair tax mixed up! The flat tax is still a tax on personal income, and would still require the IRS, and is still just as wrong as the current income tax (only simpler) , and probably would not stay simpler for very long! The Fair Tax, on the other hand is a consumption based tax, and falls into one of the two categories of taxation that the Constitution allowed for, before that 16th amendment fraud was perpetrated upon the American people in 1913.

Yes, I most certainly do think the FAIR TAX is better, and that it will pass if the people fight for it hard enough. Once enough people really understand what the FAIR TAX is really all about, and how it really works, then it will be well on its way! Please do us all a favor and research the issue, and come to a TRUE understanding! Thanks! *sm*

Answer 3

How would a flat tax put people out of work? A flat tax would cause a slight increase in money for the rich. This would cause either small business hiring or the money being spent. Also if we adopt the fair tax (which is different than a flat tax) there would be an increase in foreign companies coming to America.

Another thing to note if the IRS was shutdown. We would finally have an end to one of the most unconstitutional agency, ie the 16th amendment wasn't properly pass and there is no defined law to justify the IRS.

Just to note Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels advocated a progress income tax (exactly what the US has). Its clearly stated in the Communist Manifesto.

Answer 4

A simplified tax system would be better.

Income tax should be removed and replaced by sales tax or other kind of taxes.

Sales tax is even simpler for the taxmen than income tax, instead of taxing ALL inhabitants (around 300 millions for the USA), the taxmen just tax ALL the sellers (only a percentage of the whole population).

Answer 5

Once you accept Schumpeter you have to see the folly of a graduated income tax.

In theory it ought to be a head tax. The super-rich get one vote just like I do, why should they pay a percent of their income?

But that's not realistic since, even if you eliminated all the boondoggle (which is if you really looked at it, about 2/3 of the budget) the amount per capita would still be beyond the capacity of most people to pay.

How about we eliminate taxes on investments in corporations (since they are taxed at the corporate level already) and tax individuals at 25% of taxable income above $100K?

Yes, THAT would bring us down to the right side of the Laffer Curve, THAT would, at least in the short run, reduce revenue - - but it would dramatically increase the tax base, thus greatly reducing the "need" for social spending for those who "fall through the cracks" - because far fewer would fall through the cracks.

Answer 6

On the surface flat tax seems to be a good idea but once someone thinks about it the idea stinks.

person A makes 50K a year and is living okay. He pays 10% in taxes that reduces his income to 45K

Person B makes 1Mil a year and is living fine. He pays 10% in taxes and he is doing fine.

Person C makes 30k a year and barely ekes out a living. She pays 10% tax further reducing her available money to 27K. She can barely pay rent and has virtually nothing left for food, clothing for her kids and forget medical costs they are just too high.

In actual dollars the millionaire pays more but the ratio of what he pays vs what he needs to live comfortably is far different from that of the person making 30K a year. The former has no problem buying food, shelter, clothing and medical expenses etc. The latter has problems with all. Is it their fault, perhaps but one should never make assumptions as to why one is in the financial shape they are in. There are many reasons one could be poor, middle class, or wealthy.

Answer 7

In Vietnam we don't have income tax or house taxes no sales tax and everything goes along just fine. If you want kids then you pay for the school. If you need hospital or Dr care you pay. The politicians get rich off the foreign aid you send over here.

Answer 8

I say change to a national sales tax. Flat tax misses the under the table people and the drug dealers etc.

Answer 9

a true flat tax will be oppressive to the poor

just do the math, it's not that complicated

for a true across the board flat tax to be able to raise the same revenue as current tax plans, taxation on the poor and middle class will be MUCH higher

you would have to be an idiot to not realize this

Answer 10

Yes

Look at what Warren Buffet did for Estonia with a flat tax program.

Go Team Red Go

Answer 11

A flat tax would be much more fair than the present system.

For example:
WHY do you pay taxes on the VALUE of your house every year? Under any kind of tax theory, it should be on EITHER the increased value OR when you sell it. But just to tax the value means you are RENTING it from the govt!

It's not "how many people would be out of work?"
It's "how many people would be off the govt payroll?"

BIG difference.