The real argument for simplicity is to do away with exemptions and deductions.The most valid argument I have seen for a flat tax is that we should all pay the same percentage of our income, regardless of if we make $30,000/yr or $30,000,000/yr. What people really complain about the complexity are the deductions and the exemptions, and those can be applied to a flat tax just as easily as to a graduated income tax. Instead of looking it up on a line in a pamphlet you do simple multiplication. The difference is between "You made $68,734 in 2008 so you pay 18% (68,734*0.18) of that, which is $12,372.12 in tax." for the flat tax and "You made $68,734 in 2008, so you find the line in the tax pamphlet that lists the amount owed by people who made between $68,600 and $68,750 so you pay x (where x is the taxes due for that income bracket). Why? Because the degree of simplicity when compared to a graduated income tax is so marginal as to be irrelevant to any adult who can take care of themselves. I have never seen one that I was convinced was fully valid.The most common argument in favor I have seen revolves around simplification of the tax code, but this is a bait and switch argument. Try to provide reasoned counter-arguments to the posts of people who disagree.What I would really like to see is an actual "pro" to a flat tax. I see in the Ron Paul thread that the Flat Tax issue has come up again, so I thought I'd start a thread for it.I will state up front that I consider the flat tax to be a fundamentally flawed concept.Please post your arguments for and against a flat tax.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |