The tax code is so complicated these days only a acountant and lawer can understand. the flat tax should be 17 percent.
2007-10-08 13:55:49 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I got that 17% from Steve Forbes he knows what he is talking about.
2007-10-08 14:04:40 · update #1
based on income earned yes! with no tax breaks for big business and mega rich.
2007-10-08 13:57:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Hi,
The United States' current system has different "tax brackets." Basically, the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay in taxes. A "flat tax" would charge everybody the same percentage of their income no matter what they earn.
People (most notably Steve Forbes) have been singing the praises of a flat tax for years. I have no idea whether it would be a good idea or not, but I did track down some information from experts. Here are some of the pros and cons...
Pros:
--Gives people incentive to earn more (as they won't be taxed more).
--The NCPA writes that a flat tax would increase taxpayer privacy.
--Much simpler. Would perhaps save workers and companies millions of hours per year.
Cons:
--Transferring to a new system would be very difficult.
--Might cause more problems than it solves.
--May increase the gap between rich and poor.
There are many other pros and cons. The BBC has an excellent article on the flat tax (link included below). It explains how many countries in Eastern Europe have implemented it to varying degrees of success.
Mike
2007-10-08 14:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by Ask Mike 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You could have tax code simplification (i.e. get rid of most deductions, etc.) and still have a progressive income tax. Simplification and progressivity are different issues.
Getting rid of the progressive income tax is every rich person's dream.
How did you decide on 17% by the way? Are you sure that'll cover everything?
2007-10-08 14:02:33 · answer #3 · answered by Todd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your teacher is either a moron or a shill for the Republican Party. The less a person makes, the higher the percentage of his income has to go for food, clothing, housing, and healthcare, so a flat tax is as regressive as a sales tax. Wanna buy a bridge?
2016-05-19 02:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should be a flat tax. But it should be 10%. Don't you feel the government is soaking you too much already? I do. 10% is way more than enough for those bastards, that no matter how much they steal from you they still manage to overspend. We give aid to every country in the world. Let's cut the crap and do what's right for the American taxpayer. I don't want to give any more of my hard earned money to these greedy , self righteous socialist bastards to line their pockets with.
2007-10-08 14:01:29 · answer #5 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would love the idea of a flat tax. It's based soley on what people buy but this should exclude food. It would have to be higher than 17% though...it would most likely have to be 25%. 17% wouldn't keep the roads fixed and the government running. I'd want the same protection that we have right now.
2007-10-08 13:58:42 · answer #6 · answered by Violation Notice 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
why 17%
2007-10-08 13:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by nakkie 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, bad economics.
Where did you get 17%?
2007-10-08 13:59:03 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yep, flat tax across the board where everyone pays the same percentage.
2007-10-08 13:58:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I don't think it is fair because the poorer you are, the more flats you get and that just isn't right!
2007-10-08 13:58:27 · answer #10 · answered by Buddie 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋