DeSantis Wants To 'Eliminate the IRS' and Implement a Flat Tax
DeSantis says the new, single tax rate would mean "lower taxes for everyone" but that only demonstrates that he hasn't thought too deeply about how a flat tax would work.

During a town hall event in Iowa on Thursday night, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R–Fla.) floated the idea of abolishing the IRS and implementing a so-called "flat tax" that would charge all Americans the same rate.
"I would eliminate the IRS, have a single rate, and just do a flat tax," DeSantis said in response to a question from CNN's Kaitlan Collins, who was moderating the televised event. "That would be the ideal tax system."
If elected, Gov. DeSantis says he supports a "flat tax" — a single national income tax rate, with no deductions or exemptions — and would abolish the Internal Revenue Service. pic.twitter.com/tR5EbvkXUT
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 5, 2024
This is not the first time DeSantis has proposed these ideas. Shortly after announcing his campaign for president last spring, DeSantis told conservative radio host Dana Loesch that he viewed the IRS as "a corrupt organization" and would like to replace it with "something totally different." He's also voiced support for a flat tax in the past.
As Semafor reporter David Weigel pointed out on X (formerly Twitter), it says something about the lack of policy substance in the GOP primary that DeSantis' earlier calls for abolishing the IRS and implementing a flat tax have been a non-factor in the campaign. Vivek Ramaswamy has similarly pledged to abolish the IRS and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has called for lowering individual tax rates and reducing the number of tax brackets, though she has not provided many details about the plan.
It's also telling that, months after he initially floated it, DeSantis seemingly hasn't fleshed out the details of his flat tax idea—like what he'd want the new, single tax rate to be. On Thursday, he promised that the new rate would mean "lower taxes for everybody."
That line seems to give away how little DeSantis has thought about the specifics of his tax plan. For "everyone" to enjoy lower taxes under a flat tax system, the new rate would have to be less than the lowest current marginal federal tax rate of 10 percent, which applies to the first $11,600 earned by single filers or $23,200 earned by married couples.
It would be tremendous to have a federal income tax rate of less than 10 percent, of course, but that would be a reckless move unless paired with dramatic cuts to government spending.
A more workable proposal would probably look something like a plan drafted by The Tax Foundation and modeled on the income tax system used in Estonia: a 20 percent flat tax with a limited number of deductions. That would be a tax increase for many low-income Americans but would represent a modest tax cut for most of the middle class (which currently includes the 22 percent and 24 percent tax brackets) and a larger cut for wealthier taxpayers. The way to pitch that idea to voters is not by promising that everyone will get a tax cut, which is unlikely to be true, but by highlighting the many benefits that come from a simplified, fairer tax code.
In fairness, DeSantis did gesture towards those benefits in his response to Collins. "Low rates, broad base, ultimately that's the best and most conducive to economic growth," he said.
Indeed, that same Tax Foundation reform plan estimates that switching to a flat tax could save around $100 billion annually by simplifying the tax code and eliminating compliance costs. A fairer, simpler tax code would boost economic growth, wages, and jobs.
As the governor of a state with no income tax and booming economic growth, DeSantis entered this presidential campaign with a unique opportunity to promote a different vision for the country. But DeSantis, like the Republican Party as a whole, has been derailed by a lack of serious policy chops and an eagerness to engage in culture war nonsense in an attempt to appeal to the GOP's right wing.
That clearly hasn't worked: DeSantis is trailing former President Donald Trump by more than 30 points in Iowa, a state the DeSantis campaign reportedly views as critical to claiming the nomination.
Would DeSantis be doing better if he'd spent the past few months crafting an actual proposal to overhaul the federal tax system to make it look more like Florida's or Estonia's? Maybe not, but he likely wouldn't be doing any worse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Was about to say that it would be a sad Friday without a DeSantis/Florida story here at Reason.
Just repeal teh income tax. Federal govt can pay for itself in excise and tariffs and be forced to cut 90% of it's size..if we really need a govt program the feds do, the local state can instead....
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned Qd effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
What if we compromise between your 'Estonia Plan' of 20% and limited deductions, the 'DeSantis Plan' of 10% and no deductions.
I propose a 15% flat tax, with one large standard deduction of $25k for everyone. (You get taxed 15% on income over $25k, so does everyone else)
Fuck that. It's still a slave tax.
-jcr
Yes, still a slave tax, but the numbers work out about right, and it allows us to fire about 95 % of the IRS agents, and sends a huge number of CPA's out to find something productive to do with their time rather than living off of spoiled milk from the public teat.
For "everyone" to enjoy lower taxes under a flat tax system, the new rate would have to be less than the lowest current marginal federal tax rate of 10 percent,
Then that is what he means, and if he does mean it, he's got my vote for the first time ever for an R or D.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Ron is well aware of this incredibly well known fact that's taught even in Econ 101 classes across the country.
I imagine this is his way of saying he's going to defund the federal leviathan.
Needless to say, that will not happen nor would he have that authority as President but it's at least a step in the right direction.
That said, I do not support a flat tax generally because it's burden is only felt at the lowest income brackets. It's a rounding error for just about everyone else. There are many ways around that, but at that point you're just replacing one complex absurd system with another complex absurd system.
I'm sick of people trotting out the "low income" argument against everything.
I don't care if the lower echelon pays more than they do today. They should! Everyone needs to have skin in the game. Or, leave the damn game!
The two biggest problems I see - I was a professional tax accountant in my pre-retirement years - is that many are not wage slaves. A simple "% of their net income calculation" becomes another, complex tax system.
Not against everything, just this thing in particular.
A tax that's low enough for the bottom to pay it comfortably is laughably low for any income bracket above it. That's just a fact.
As a percentage of their income, the burden falls almost entirely on the working poor. They would be the only one's to notice the tax at all. Notably, there are other ways to get the bottom of the tax pile to have skin in the game without putting the majority of the burden on them in particular.
I won't give an opinion on what a superior system would be, but a flat tax isn't it. Sure, a flat tax is 'simple' but that doesn't make it a good option.
One of the few other good things about a flat tax is that it would indeed starve the fed, but if the government won't shrink their expenditures now there's little reason to think they would under a flat tax either, nor is there any particular incentive for the Fed to starve itself in any scenario.
A tax that’s low enough for the bottom to pay it comfortably is laughably low for any income bracket above it. That’s just a fact.
No, it's bullshit. Everybody can pay 20%, in particular after a $20000 deduction.
The fact that low income Americans can't seem to make ends meet is a result of poor financial habits, not any kind of economic necessity.
We can’t fix stupid, for examples, see Pedo jeffy, Sarc, Pluggo, Jfree, Molly, etc.. or any of the other free range leftist idiots in this country.
Exactly. It's easy to vote for free stuff when you aren't paying for it. Maybe it they had some skin in the game, they wouldn't be so willing.
Right now it's "let's tax others so they can pay for it"
And we can repeal the part of the 24th amendment that says you do not have to be up to date on your taxes to vote.
I'd go further and say that no one who gets more in total from all government sources than he pays in total to all government bodies shall not be allowed to vote. And that includes social security, medicare and various federal and state pensions. What we've got now is a positive feedback loop, going in the wrong direction.
Should be sales tax only, not a flat tax, we've been through this. Anyhoo, take your eyes off Ron DeSantis' too-online culture warring long enough to notice this one that slipped under the radar:
Sales taxes are regressive, and in order to generate enough revenue I suspect would have to be high enough that smuggling would be incentivised.
What do you think the sales tax rates should be?
The people promoting what they call "The Fair Tax" seem to agree on 23%.
As an upper limit. 0% (possibly even negative) for all spending one does below the poverty line. The more you spend, the higher the effective rate becomes until the limit is reached.
The flat tax also removes FICA and Medicare which anti flat taxers never seem to realize.
The 23% that you refer to is included at the retail level. Since there would be no corporate taxes, currently at 22% on average, the wholesale price would be lower resulting in the same retail price of the item that you bought. Plus everyone gets a tax rebate at the beginning of each month. That is about $6,000 to $7,000 a year for the tax that you pay up to the poverty level. And by the way, this method of collecting taxes would have brought into our tax coffers more in 15 out of the last 16 quarters. That way the poor would not be penalized like they are now with the graduated income tax scheme or the Flat tax which is anything but flat. The Fair tax does away with the IRS so April 15th is just another day. That saves individuals and corporations roughly $ 500 billion in tax services. When Joe Six Pack finds out about this every member of Congress will be running scared. Also, let’s mention that the Fair Tax people asked the 400 largest corporations in the world what the Fair Tax being implemented cause them to do. 240 said they would build their next plant here and the remaining 160 said they would move their corporate offices here. Think about it, $500-600 at the first of each month, no income taxes taken out of your paycheck, no tax filing, and everyone is treated the same. Tourists, drug dealers, pimp & prostitutes, black market people, everyone paying their fair share each time they make a retail purchase. of a new item. All used items would not be taxed. I’m just waiting on Joe Six Pack to find out about this, it’s going to be fun. Stay tuned…..
You have bought into their latest rs.
Prices will go up by almost the full 30%.
See my summary and supporting papers at sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge
Prices will go up by almost the full 30%.
Sure, because there's no such thing as competition. That's why vendors can charge whatever they want right now.
Idiot.
-jcr
No it’s NOT a 23% sales tax, it’s a 30% sales tax.
If is product costs $100 BEFORE adding this sales tax, you would add $30 in Maira tax and tge total would be $130. THAT is a 39# sales tax.
The con men selling this nonsense try to fool the public into thinking it’s “only” 23% by dividing the $30 tax BY THE TOTAL of $130 (23%) but that is NOT how we calculate a sales tax rate.
Would you buy a used car from these con men, I would not.
23% would have worked, 20 years ago. It would need to be 35% now. Spending has gone up 50% in just the past 5 years.
Sales taxes are no more regressive than income taxes are and possibly less so as almost every district in the land doesn't tax "necessities" such as unprepared food etc. This can, just like an income tax be tweaked in ways to make it less regressive. And most libertarian of all: it doesn't require a massive surveillance state and tens of thousands of documents and auditors making arbitrary decisions on what "income" is. I know that modern mainstream libertarianism is all in on the surveillance state "if done right", but unfortunately, I am not. I'm also particularly offended when a working class Jewish family has an old familial artwork from wwii repatriated to them, and 20 minutes later a severe looking IRS woman with her hair in a bun and a clipboard comes in, her pumps clicking across the tile floor and says, "You owe us $3,000,000!
The government, state or federal has NO right to know how I spend my days, how much money I have in my bank account, or how it got there. A removal of income tax would wipe out the impetus for civil asset forfeiture as well- because the entire culture of the government having a right to know how a bundle of cash came into your back pocket or bank account is *poof* gone.
What do you think the sales tax rates should be?
Washington state has NO income tax and its rate is ~10%. I suspect that a national sales tax and removal of a federal income tax might require a sales tax of 17-25%. But of course, like any dramatic plan which turns Americas tax scheme on its head, it would have to be studied.
to be high enough that smuggling would be incentivized.
How am I going to smuggle goods from Safeway, my car dealer, Amazon.com, the hardware store, the Starbucks, the Dominoes Pizza, the Brewpub down the street, the clothing store...
Oh, and on the smuggling thing...
Early Americans would have believed that an income tax rate of 28% would have resulted in mass avoidance and revolts. Yet America has one of the highest compliance rates in the world.
Further on the smuggling thing, Washington has a Liquor sales tax that is around %20 (over and above the normal %10 sales tax). While it makes a standard bottle of booze quite expensive, I've never smuggled something out of the Safeway-- although many homeless people do so they have to lock it up behind glass doors now. I suspect the smuggling that takes place among our people *checks woke rhetoric* experiencing homelessness would not be abated by removing the 20% sales tax on the bottle of Chivas Regal.
Oh, and one last point, because sales taxes are charged at the point of sale, and every district in the solar system already charges them, and the systems and mechanisms for its collection are already in place, and everyone pays them at some point, black marketeers are eventually captured by it. The drug dealer pays it when he buys a new Chevy Tahoe, the pimp pays it when he buys a new suit etc.
on the smuggling thing
Smuggling may have been a poor choice of words by SRG. “Black markets” would probably be better. Clearly higher taxes drive black markets. There would definitely be some losses: things that “fell off the back of a truck” etc; it would likely incentivize more bartering too. So there would be some losses and likely some new 3 letter organizations to combat that.
Still, I’m on board with your proposal as better than what we have now.
One objection to a national sales tax, which is also an objection to state sales taxes, is that it turns every vendor into a tax collector. Though I'm not sure how to do it otherwise.
A) they already *are* tax collectors. They collected their taxes from their customers as part of their pricing models, then remit their taxes to the government.
B) in the Fair Tax proposals, vendors are paid to collect the taxes AND unburdened of income taxes
In most of Europe the business pays the vat tax and it is built into the shown price. Not that difficult.
Vendors are already tax collectors everywhere that has sales taxes.
Of course, on the border, you can live/work in Washington and then buy most of your goods in Oregon. Best of both worlds.
Oh, and on the smuggling thing…
That's done all the time between Illinois and Indiana due to the tax rates (and the fact the fireworks are legal in Indiana, but not Illinois). The grocery stores, gas stations, tobacco shops, etc., are all almost universally in Indiana near or next to the border, but one has to go a few miles into Illinois before finding such things. There's very few near the border within Illinois. Why, you might ask? Illinois taxes groceries and prescription drugs at 1% plus any county or municipal taxes (2.25% in Chicago - sugary drinks are charged a 13.25% rate). Indiana does not tax them at all. Indiana has lower fuel tax rates (gasoline and diesel) than Illinois, especially Cook County and Chicago. They also have a lower tax on tobacco products (this is the one that tends to raise the ire of Illinois the most for revenue - $2.98/pk versus $0.995/pk in Indiana). The base sales tax is higher in Indiana (7%) than Illinois (6.25%), but in the Chicago area, it's much lower (7% versus 10.25%).
In addition, if you make out-of-state purchases, you're supposed to note them on the IL-1040 form and pay the Illinois tax. Hardly anyone does though.
You are insane if you don't understand the surveillance state involved in sales tax. Every transaction.
It is no accident however that everyone out there wants to imagine a Single Tax. While ignoring the original single tax propounded by Henry George. Land Value Tax.
Which also involves the least surveillance since the land doesn't move. And it also is, by far, the tax that has the least impact on changing behavior (hence distorting the economy).
As an aside a land value tax could also be collected the way the original federal government was to be funded in the Articles of Confederation. Where the states themselves would receive a bill from the feds for the value of the land therein. The states would collect that tax and would be required to send it on in gold - or hell maybe in land. So we could have a continual replenishing of homesteading.
The reason we got rid of that provision in the Constitution was because of the obvious (states chose not to pay the bill) and slavery.
Around here a tried-and-true way to rid an area of the poors is to raise mill rates and property valuations. When they can't afford the taxes on the family home that they inherited, they have no choice but to sell to a rich person. It's a great way to stop families from creating generational wealth, and better for ones that already have it.
That's not really what happens with a land value tax. Not at all. With an LVT, the incentive is to generate income from the land. That's what pays the tax. Rather than just simply leaving the land idle and generating the income to pay the tax from somewhere else. Build a duplex instead of a single-family. The improvement isn't taxed so the LVT stays the same. But the property now generates an income to more than pay the tax. Does that mean there are changes in ownership? Of course. The idle sell so they don't have to pay the tax. The land ends up in the hands of the owner who provides the greatest value going forward. The same way markets work.
There would generally be shift away from residential housing investment. But that is because that is not really an investment but consumption paid for by debt. It is not really productive - unless the system is distorted so that inflation creates the illusion of productivity.
Who determines the value of land in such a system?
How do you price it in such a way that property is not simply abandoned and left to rot?
Does the government take over the land when it's abandoned?
I've never really seen any of that particularly addressed, and these are common criticisms of such a system.
Who determines the value of land in such a system?
The market. The value of land is basically the total sale minus the depreciated value of the improvement.
Does the government take over the land when it’s abandoned?
Yes. And then they have to pay the land value tax too. So they sell it to the highest bidder of that land who is most able to pay that tax.
I think what you mean to say is a new government agency would decide what the valuation is and there is no way the government could pay a tax to itself.
the surveillance state involved in sales tax.
You've obviously never worked in retailing. There is no "surveillance" of customers required. The store simply reports gross sales and sends in a percentage. The gross sales numbers are already being reported in order to calculate income taxes, so that is information the government is already collecting.
What surveillance is there when I buy something with cash?
There is an additional advantage to a uniform sales tax.
It eliminates the corporate income tax which is used for controlling corporate investment through tax "subsidies" (bribes) and it effectively eliminates much regulation used by large corporations to crush smaller competitors.
Not sure why corporations shouldn't get taxed, though.
Because the people who run them are already taxed.
Their employees pay income tax and investors (people saving for retirement) pay capital gains tax.
Corporations never get taxed. "Corporate" taxes in included in the prices of the goods and services, which are paid by their customers.
The biggest argument against a sales tax is that we would undoubtedly still have the income tax. Congress wouldn't pass a sales tax at 30% or so with the income tax going away, but they might pass a 10% sales tax in exchange for income tax cuts (not elimination.) Then we would be stuck with both, and a future Congress could increase both rates in the name of "fiscal responsibility."
Washington state has NO income tax and its rate is ~10%. I suspect that a national sales tax and removal of a federal income tax might require a sales tax of 17-25%. But of course, like any dramatic plan which turns Americas tax scheme on its head, it would have to be studied.
States don’t have the same economic position as the Feds so you can’t directly compare.
But it’s not too difficult to estimate a ball-park rate.
Current Federal revenues from individuals run to about $2.6tn.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58891
Current retail sales are about $7tn.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-sales/
Assuming no feedback effects, sales taxes would need to be about 35% to raise current revenue. As you’ve already decided that essentials don’t get taxed, then luxury items might go to 50% or more – as essentials typically make up a larger proportion of a family budget. And you would deffo get smuggling for such items – though as Quicktown Brix suggested, I might have made a poor choice of words and “black market” would be more appropriate. Of course, smuggling would feed into a black market.
If we assume that your sales tax boosts spending, suppose retail sales rise to 8tn – you’d still need an average at least 30% sales tax.
And as others have noted, policing and enforcement of sales taxes and increased surveillance to prevent smuggling, black markets, etc won’t be free. The Law of Unintended Consequences suggests that it will end up costing more than the IRS – and would be more invasive.
A move to a flat tax or a much simplified code seems a better (and more conservative…) solution.
"And as others have noted, policing and enforcement of sales taxes and increased surveillance to prevent smuggling, black markets, etc won’t be free."
But the real question is would this be less invasive and less costly than the current status quo?
Walmart and Amazon would just keep selling stuff, collecting the sales taxes and remitting them as they do now for state sales taxes. Few, if any, people are going to be able to get Walmart to cheat for them.
And few people are going to seek out black market Tide or Pepsi just to save a couple of dollars. They'll just go to Walmart and pay the tax.
It would be easier to endure tax dollars are more efficiently spent at the state level than through the federal leviathan.
Great points! The Fair Tax already has congressmen and women behind it, It is an inclusive tax on a new retail product. Your $1 of Coke or Pepsi would still cost $1 because there would be no corporate taxes paid. This lowers the wholesale price by 22% on average. The Fair Tax also reaps more revenue for Congress to waste since everyone is paying taxes when they spend their dollars. Black market people, Pimps & prostitutes, drug dealers, and tourists. Just wait until Joe Six Pack finds out about this .....
I’ve found that people are astonishingly resistant to attempts to explain the Fair Tax to them.
I already bought a bridge across the East River and some coastal property in Arizona, sorry.
Converting from taxes on work and investment to taxes on consumption is the ultimate supply-side move. Strip out all of the other functions of the Internal Revenue Service until it becomes the Internal Refund Service, in charge of making sure that everyone gets exactly the same monthly refund, which, by the way, could also replace socialized welfare benefits such as food stamps and housing subsidies, further enhancing libertarian market principles at the expense of central planning. Frame it as a mini-UBI to start, watch the progress in making everyone, rich and poor alike, richer, and make the monthly refund more generous as growth compounds. Frame it as an Unconditional Basic Income that could actually be enacted to bring along enough votes to get it enacted. Why we still tax good things like work and investment instead of less good things like consumption just doesn't make sense.
Texas - no state income tax. Our sales tax is 8.5% where I live but property taxes are higher than average states.
But if we get rid of the IRS, think about those 85,000 new people that had their heart set on auditing you won't have a job (Yeah, auditing the rich you need 85,000 new agents...bull Dems)
Sales taxes are regressive
No, sales taxes are progressive: higher income earners pay disproportionately more than low income earners.
What do you think the sales tax rates should be?
Much of Europe has around 20% sales tax, on top of 40% income tax and 30% retirement and health care-related taxes.
In the US, 20-25% of a national sales tax would be sufficient to finance the federal government with no income tax.
Sales taxes are regressive.
Low income person A makes 50K and spends it all every year, paying 20% in sales taxes costs him 10K (20% of his income).
High income person A makes 200K and pends 150K every year, paying 20% in sales taxes costs him 30K (15% of his income).
I mean, it's grade school level math.
That's why the FairTax proposal includes monthly rebate checks, so that mere subsistence is not taxed.
Well, duh, Mr. Obvious! Did you think that I didn't know that faulty argument?
Your argument that a sales tax is "regressive" is wrong because it uses the wrong ratio (sales taxes to income) and makes the wrong assumptions (low income earners need to spend a larger percentage of their money than high income earners).
Finally, someone who makes $50K is not "low income" even by US standards, that is second quintile. And by world standards and $PPP, they are wealthy.
US GDP was 23 trillion in 2023. But 6 trillion of that was government spending. So the productive economy generated 17 trillion dollars. 6/17 = 35%, which is what the tax rate would need to be.
23% was a good target for the so-called Fair Tax, 20 years ago. Government spending has skyrocketed since then.
You're moving the goalpost. Tax receipts don't cover all government spending now. Deficit spending is a separate issue.
You can exempt items like they do now - food, water, etc. Who will buy a more expensive car and pay more tax?
If you are poor, you shouldn't be getting that 1500 dollar iphone anyway
One of the problems with a national sales tax is who's going to collect it? Some states don't have state sales taxes, so they don't have an infrastructure to collect them. Are you going to force those states to create the infrastructure to collect sales taxes? Give them federal dollars to do it? What about the businesses in those states? I live in one of the states with no sales tax. The owner of an independent bookstore that I know told me he deliberately opened his store in a state with no sales tax because he didn't want to be a tax collector for the state. What do you say to business owners like him?
One of the problems with a national sales tax is who’s going to collect it?
Let me call up Safeway and ask them.
Some states don’t have state sales taxes, so they don’t have an infrastructure to collect them.
Some states don't have income taxes either. Implementing the systems for a sales tax is probably quite easy. Amazon had to implement sales tax collections for chrissakes. If Amazon can do it, I think the State of Oregon can do it- despite the massive black hole of retardation that runs that state.
. Are you going to force those states to create the infrastructure to collect sales taxes?
Yes, just like we forced Amazon to collect sales taxes-- for every state in the union.
The owner of an independent bookstore that I know told me he deliberately opened his store in a state with no sales tax because he didn’t want to be a tax collector for the state. What do you say to business owners like him?
Right, so your preferred system is you have to be the tax collector on yourself, while the government peers into your bank account, audits you and can demand you account for every dollar in your pocket.
What do you say to business owners like him?
I say that he's going to fall into the same business compliance with the other 45 states in the 50 state union, and the rest of America's bank accounts, including his own are set free from the Eye of Sauron.
Fair Tax proposal includes a fee paid to vendors to offset their tax-collection costs (0.25% of the tax collected, as I recall).
And a pre-bate to everyone so low income people aren't destroyed by the tax.... it's getting awfully complicated, folks. And making everyone a recipient of government checks.
Even so, it’s far less complicated than our current income tax code.
What do you say to business owners like him?
FYTW
DEI Googlers have nothing to fear. Of the 200,000 jobs "created" in December, 50,000 were with government where incompetents are not merely tolerated, but are preferred. No one gets fired from a government job unless they show signs of sentience.
That's funny. Had tech worker family members here over the holiday. They insisted we pay homage to the big three in the Silicon Valley. We made a day trip down there.
That area is devoid of anything but white and asian. It's so obvious to any of us living in actually diverse areas of the SF Bay Area. If the tech giants want to "integrate", they're going to have to move out of the area to find a diverse labor force.
And, that ain't going to happen.
Silicon Valley has the most diverse workforce on Earth. People are hired for ability, not skin color (at least they used to be in the recent past.) I’ve worked at tech companies with under 100 workers with 50 different nationalities represented, and every skin tone from white to black. I’ve been at many meetings with 15 or 20 people where I was the only native English speaker. No one is discriminating against black or brown skin toned people.
Now if you look at who can afford to buy homes in Silicon Valley, it may well be mostly white and Asian people, due to historical and cultural reasons, and how long ago they immigrated and bought homes (when they were relatively cheaper.) But the work forces are very diverse.
It would be tremendous to have a federal income tax rate of less than 10 percent, of course, but that would be a reckless move unless paired with dramatic cuts to government spending.
Let the chips fall where they may. Congress will never cut spending until they have no choice. Maintaining the current blood-draining income tax only prolongs the bullshit.
Congress spends money because that's what they promise to do. When was the last time someone got elected on a promise to cut entitlements? How many Senators are elected on a promise to cancel military contracts with companies in their state? People get what they vote for, and they vote for spending.
Well said. Congress could cut taxes to nothing and then just run up the national debt as far as they can.
Congress will keep borrowing money until investors lose faith in bonds. Then things will get really interesting, really fast.
BRICS/de-dollarisation might force the Federal government's hand. It would benefit export-orientated companies, though.
Right, the BRICS would never screw around with their currency like the Fed does!
China's "Belt and Road" initiative is an expensive failure, they have somewhere between 7 and 11 Trillion dollars in off-the-books borrowing, they are piling up unsold EV's even though these vehicles are heavily subsidized and they just spent a few Trillion on targets, sometimes referred to as battleships, aircraft carriers and cheap knockoffs of the F-35.
They are the 600 lb gorilla of BRICs. Unfortunately, this 600 lb gorilla can't swim and the countries tying their future to China will have to cut their ties or end up at the bottom of the ocean with their corpulent simian ally.
Those are arguments against holding CNY or CNH for the moment. They're not arguments that long-term de-dollarisation won't occur, nor against the other possible component currencies which would make up a BRICS basket.
BRICS doesn't have any credible alternative to the dollar.
Maybe if a gold standard were widely adopted by a large number of other nations... but I don't see that happening: their governments love printing money just as much as our government.
Or when the total interest payments due on previously issued bonds becomes impossible to pay. Not sure which would happen first.
They never become impossible to pay—you just print more money. The limit hits when creditors no longer accept your debased money in payment.
how is that different from what they're doing now?
They almost have run up the debt as high as they can. It’s now over 34 trillion dollars. At 4% interest, that’s 1.36 trillion a year, in interest alone. Federal tax revenues are around 4 trillion right now, so a third of the budget is going to pay the interest on previous spending.
If you have to borrow more money to make the minimum payments on your debts, technically you're already broke.
I don't think people really vote for spending. They vote for status quo and current spending/programs is status quo.
What we fail to do in the US is imagine a different status quo. So instead we just corrupt things by tweaking the existing.
Um, if the status quo is spending, and people vote for the status quo, then they're voting for spending.
Did you mean more spending? Like cutting taxes without cutting the budget, or forgiving student loans?
But they are voting for the status quo. 'Don't change my programs' absent some serious proposal to reform them that people understand/accept.
People don't care about the spending itself. It's why the easiest way to cut spending is just the waste/fraud/abuse stuff. Which is also the easiest way to avoid cutting spending.
It’s why the easiest way to cut spending is just the waste/fraud/abuse stuff.
You mean make things efficient? Not going to happen. Ever. Efficiency exists in the private sector because of the profit incentive. Root out waste fraud and abuse and you make more money. Government doesn't make money. It spends it. If anything their incentive is to have waste, fraud and abuse because it means they spend their entire budget and get more money the following year.
Sounds like an excuse to me. There may be plenty of reasons to avoid accountability/responsibility but there is no such thing as an impossibility for accountability/responsibility.
Like jacking up spending from 4 trillion a year to 6 trillion a year, in just 5 years. Cut spending back to 2018 levels and the budget would be balanced today.
Congress will never cut spending until we force them to.
They have no concept of debt at all. They believe all things economic spring from the government.
i.e. this is why the "new monetarism" is being widely accepted. Just print money. What could possibly go wrong?
No, they won't cut spending. They will continue running up the debt until no one will take our money, then the system will collapse. Prepare now to either survive in Mad Max land or end your life.
Id rather abolish income taxes, and have a national sales tax of 6% on all regular goods (nothing property or property adjacent).
How much revenue would that generate?
An interesting comparison re revenues is Switzerland v US. Both collect about the same % of GDP in taxes. But via very different tax revenue structure and dependence on debt (instead of taxes) to fund spending.
With retail sales at $7tn, a 6% sales tax raises $420bn. So that rate is dead in the water.
Switzerland at federal level has:
VAT - 3% on necessities, 8% on everything else
Income - 1 - 12% rate with a $20,000 and highest marginal rate at $1 million income
Wealth - 0.3% - 0.5% (30- 50 basis points) starting at around $500,000
No tax base with a single leg can work. Especially not if it can change behavior for people to avoid paying it.
No tax base with a single leg can work. Especially not if it can change behavior for people to avoid paying it.
That is a sufficiently sensible point that I expect a number of posters to pile on you for making it.
You got it!
Especially the behavior part.
In my personal experience as a finance professional, I very strongly believe that the actual avoidance in our current system is multiples higher than any of the analysis findings I've ever seen.
Some of it is even just ignorance of the complex tax system.
that's more than enough money to do whatever the fedgov needs to do.
6% on the 17 trillion in net GDP (after subtracting 6 trillion in government spending from the official 23 trillion GDP) would yield 1 trillion dollars. Or not even enough to pay the interest on the previously accrued debt (34 trillion and counting.)
You need a national sales tax of about 20-25% to replace revenue from the income tax.
But that's OK: Europe has those kinds of sales tax levels in addition to 30-40% income tax, plus another 20-30% in social security and healthcare taxes.
>>David Weigel pointed out on X (formerly Twitter),
I figured this would wear off, but maybe not. X is in an “artist formerly known as Prince” situation.
I have a personal theory that Elon changing the name of Twitter was just a massive troll to see how many times he could get journalists to write the exact phrase "X (formerly Twitter)" and for how long.
Any way you look at it, it is deadnaming.
This is America. Where one doesn't need to be smart to be rich. Just controversial. Both Prince and Elon.....along with those wonderful Kardshians, have mastered this.
I blame it on the dumbing down of public education decades back. Now, we pay the price as society declines into controversy and mediocraty.
Prince was brilliant though, at least musically. Hard to argue that Elon wasn’t too, after succeeding in launching several dominant companies in entirely different industries. The Kardashians are just giving the masses what they want, like PT Barnum. Nothing brilliant about that.
And Prince went to Minnesota public schools, back when they were still good.
taxation remains theft.
So, how would one finance any government without taxes?
Even primitive cultures had collective labor.
Donations. Most everyone seems to agree that some level of government is necessary. Cut a check.
Membership dues. Divide the total spending by the number of able-bodied adults, and send them each a bill for their fair share.
Lotteries. Lots of people like to gamble. Imagine if the weekly lottery had a billion dollar prize.
User fees. Collect 10% for any judgment reached in civil government court cases.
Why tax women with small breasts? DeSantis wants to milk them for what he can get?
The breasts would get larger when milked
I'm always skeptical of presidents who promise legislative changes, anyway. Seems like that's in the purview of Congress. Still, abolishing the IRS would be a step in the right direction, it's just, then what are you creating to replace it if you're still planning on collecting your flat tax?
The IRS is not the problem, the problem is the authors of the tax code, the Congress. Simplifying the tax code would solve the problem, but there are too many special interests that would bark loudly about losing their deductions or their credits.
Thank you!
The IRS is just the whipping boy for anti-tax types. Just like WalMart in retail. Or, the 1% in society today.
Orwell was not mistaken with his dystopian concept of two minutes of hate in 1984. It works well to keep the focus of the masses off the real issues.
Harry Browne had the right approach. Eliminate the income tax, lay off all the IRS workers, and sell off all of their buildings, land and office equipment. Cut government back to its constitutional functions, and the income tax is unneeded, as it was for the first 124 years of the Republic.
I still remember a Ron Paul interview in the 2008 campaign on Fox Business, where the (supposedly pro-freedom) TV host asked Dr. Paul (who was standing in front of the Capitol building), "how would be build things like the Capitol Building you're standing in front of, without an income tax?" Whereupon Dr. Paul reminded him that the Capitol was built long before the income tax was enacted.
While it is true that a number of the oldest building in Washington were built before the income tax was instituted, a number were also built with slave labor which also reduced the cost.
Can't fix the US tax system until you fix the US spending system. Only a dumbass R believes the former is more in need of fixing than the latter. Pure pandering for the purpose of forcing debt (grandkids) to fund spending.
Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.
--Bastiat
Fuck you, cut spending is always appropriate.
Not apparently among any R's running for Prez. Or for that matter any R critters in Congress. Debt clock goes brrrrrr
34 trillion and counting.
The Dem narrative that Trump increased the debt more than any previous President is true, but won't be a year from now, as Biden cranks it up even faster.
Only a dumbass whatever-you-are JFree believes that you can't cut taxes without cutting spending.
Tax revenues keep going up after tax cuts, but spending keeps going up, even faster.
Well, yes, bigger tax revenues encourage more spending. Therefore, let's implement much bigger tax cuts so that tax revenues actually go down and politicians will be encouraged to actually cut spending.
He has never really espoused these views before so I'm going to assume it's a cynically assumed posture that he read off a card titled "things Republicans believe". I will leave it to others to pick apart "how much do Ron DeSantis' words mean?" They mean very little to me.
"The income tax system used in Estonia." Uh huh. That's the best you can do?
The problem with a flat rate is not whether it should be 9% or 10% or 11%, but what the unseen consequences would be of eliminating all the deductions and exemptions. Eliminate home mortgage deduction? What would that do to homebuying? And so on. Do I really need to bring up chaos theory?
Nobody worried about the consequences when they started taxing us.
Remember that the deduction is on the interest, not the entire payment. The interest alone must exceed the standard deduction which, in 2024, is $13K for singles and $29K for married couples.
Uh, that's interest PLUS all the other Sched A deductions.
My property taxes alone, exceed the $10,000 threshold for state tax deductions.
You mean it might stab the overvaluation of single family homes right in the heart by ending the preferential tax treatment of it?
GREAT!
No social engineering through the tax code? Quelle horror!
Dramatically reduce the cost of a new home. When less money is available, home builders have to figure out a way to keep their prices within the available cash.
But the single most evil deduction is the "charitable" deduction. Consider two possibilities:
1. Give $10,000 to the best person you know who has, for no reason of his doing, come on very hard times.
2. Give $10,000 to Multinational Mega Charities Incorporated whose CEO makes $500,000 per year with a two million dollar expense account.
Which one gets you a tax deduction?
3. Tithe to your church.
The major cost of a new home isn't the cost of materials or labor to construct it. It's the land and all the infrastructure improvements that must be put into the project along with permits and fees.
People still buy the myth that the cost is based on the residential structure on it. When, one is really buying space and, space is as much of a supply/demand function as any hard object.
There are good charities. There are also some very bloated charities. So a little due diligence is in order. Just like everything else where money is involved.
9 or 10 or 11%? It would need to be more like 35% now.
Eliminate home mortgage deduction? What would that do to homebuying? And so on. Do I really need to bring up chaos theory?
Other nations function perfectly well without this upper middle class government handout.
In the short run, of course, we need some transitional rules so that people who took out mortgages under the old rules aren't screwed.
Watching Ron DeSantis is painful. It like watching a slow-motion train crash or plane crash. I have said before I think he has the talent and skill to be President but lacks the skills to run for President.
The flat tax idea is fun to talk about right up to the point where you actually have to put out a plan. It is the Republican analog of the Democrat's Medicare for All. Both Flat Tax and M4A work great for talking but fall flat when you have to explain how to actually make it work. As the article notes a 10% tax will not work and I seriously doubt even a 20% tax will work.
As for you talking sales, or consumption tax, just spend a minute explaining the transition from current system to your tax idea. I'm thinking it is as pie-in-the-sky as the flat tax and M4A.
Biden lacks all cognitive skills. Apparently all you need is a name people have heard before. Which is why I still hold out hope for Kennedy.
You need take some time and really see what President Biden can do. Because to quote Toby Keith, "May not be good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was".
With Biden it’s (D)ifferent.
" reducing the number of tax brackets,"
This is almost always floated, and does almost exactly zero to simplify the tax code or simplify the preparation of taxes.
Ultimately, tax brackets, whether there are 1, 2, 5, or 50 brackets, boil down to a table that works like:
"If your AGI is more than $A, but less than $B, then your tax owed is $X plus Y% of the AGI amount greater $A."
Where $A, $B and %Y are defined by the bracket, and $X is precomputed for the table by summing up all the previous bracket tax loads.
No matter which bracket your income lands in, the process boils down to finding the row in the table that encompasses your AGI, subtract the bracket's lower end ($A) from your AGI, multiply the result by the bracket percentage (Y%), and add the result to the bracket's base tax ($Z).
Obviously, TurboTax et al., do this lookup and computation for you.
Just always get ranty when someone complains about the number of brackets, as if *that* is the big problem with the tax code.
Amen, Amen I say to you. The tax rates have nothing to do with the complexity of the tax code. It is smoke to hid the real problem.
Exactly. The complication isn't in the number of brackets, it's in the number of rules.
A more workable proposal would probably look something like a plan drafted by The Tax Foundation and modeled on the income tax system used in Estonia: a 20 percent flat tax with a limited number of deductions.
A 20% flat tax?
LOL Reason, better stick to emptytheprisons and sex worker stories. And keeping the adults in charge in DC.
Agree here. Problem with a flat tax is that no politician will tell you what the real rate would have to be.
it doesnt HAVE to be anything.
No, it doesn't. People arguing against the Fair Tax often move the goalposts by insisting it collect enough to eliminate the budget deficit. It need only replace current income tax receipts to be superior. If spending can be reduced, well, that would be swell, but it's a separate issue.
I am not trying to move the goal post but only suggesting as you are that the tax would have to cover the current income tax receipts. I am suggesting that politicians putting the tax forward tend to low ball the rate needed, as Gov DeSantis has done. Independ sources, even those favoring single rate generally put the mark at 20% to 25%. That will be a much harder sell.
The original FairTax proponents set it at 23%, so they're right in your ballpark.
https://fairtax.org
Spending is it’s own problem.
20% was considered a crushing tax burden in ancient Egypt and medieval Europe. And it was. And we are paying 25% now.
I agree, which was why I laughed at a “libertarian” website suggesting a 20% flat tax was more realistic.
A flat tax should be at 10% and fuckyoucutspending until the 10% works. Let the fucking democrats rationalize their cradle to grave welfare programs.
That is because in ancient Egypt and medieval Europe taxes were mostly needed to support the Pharo or King's lavish (by the days standards) lifestyle and not provide the level of services we have today. The people also had to pay rent for using the land which went to the King and his nobles, who owned the land. That rent was not a tax but a fee for service.
I tried to post something, it never showed up. Reposting is met with "You're trying to post a duplicate..." I'm quite frustrated.
Do what Claudine Gay failed to do and try to post again.
Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!
But my previous comment is not present.
Just change a couple of words, like Claudine Gay did, and you'll be fine.
I think it might be (D)ifferent when she does it.
A couple of decades ago something called the Fair Tax was floating around amongst libertarians and various other malcontents. It would be a sales tax but everybody would get a check to cover the cost equivalent to the poverty level or some pre determined middle class cost. Don’t remember exactly. The point was to tax consumption not income which would reward the frugal and punish the profligate. Receipts to the federal government would be equal to current receipts via the income tax. The problem is not that such a system wouldn’t work. The problem is that government would be deprived of using the tax code to reward the grifters that rely on DC to protect their phoney baloney jobs. No good way to reward people for buying EVs without a tax credit. I have no idea what Disantis is suggesting but for Bohem to implicitly endorse the status quo doesn’t strike me as a very thoughtful response for a “libertarian”.
Well said. The tax code will never be "fixed" because it's not "broken". The grift isn't the side effect, it's the point.
The real problem would be that 23% wouldn't work anymore. It would need to be 35%.
Why is it that when Biden says he wants the rich to "pay their fair share" no one at Reason demand he be more specific.
My advice: Get the fuck out of Washington DC!!! By living there, you're absorbing absolute crap through osmosis.
In all my years, and despite asking anyone who says that "What, exactly, constitutes a 'fair share'?" non one has ever answered the question.
10 percent to the big guy?
Touche'
"but that would be a reckless move unless paired with dramatic cuts to government spending."
So just cut all cabinet positions, and their entire staff, that are not specifically defined in the US Constitution.
And, cut all those taxpayer funded staff positions and tell those less than business qualified elected officials to do their damn job...on their own.
Even as a top exec at a $40M/year company, I didn't have a bunch of staff to serve my personal needs. I had shared company office staff that took care of corporate needs. No personal secretaries in sight. I did my own memos and reports. As did all the others. Except our CEO.
When I see the congressional staff personnel, my mind is just blown. The elitism and lack of cost controls is staggering.
Well, Ron, for damn near half the country, the tax rate is zero.
How are you going to get lower than that?
For some 20% of the country, the tax rate is negative because the refundable credits they get more than exceed their combined income taxes AND payroll taxes.
And the sick joke about that is that it is NOT just the poorest people who are effectively paying no tax. Working poor people without dependents or eligibility for other breaks get slammed with the full 10% income tax and the 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax.
A reasonable inference to be drawn from this article is EB would not complain if someone like Bernie Sanders was given carte blanche authority to rewrite the US Tax Code.
That's weapons-grade stupid.
Yes Drunky, it would be. But the real question is if ENB has time to order that in between her sandwich service duties.
A rent on the unimproved value of land, or at worst an LVT, is the best option.
No. No rents on 'unimproved value of land'. That's just a way to force people out of their homes.
I don't need the property tax on my home to go up because the surrounding area has something built that makes it more valuable - you want to capture that increase in value in tax, you tax the sale. That way you don't have to deal with refunding property tax if the value of the property goes down.
Property taxes by design, are to pay for local needs. Fire, police, roads, etc. They are more tangible than federal funding concepts.
The "fairest" property taxes would be equal distribution of costs. Not based on land values at all. i.e. It costs this city $X/year to build and operate a fire department. Every citizen is covered. Hence, divide the total cost - after justifying it to the constituency - amongst all adults owning property here.
Seems perfectly fair to me to tax citizens for local government needs based on how much of the community they own.
DeSantis says the new, single tax rate would mean "lower taxes for everyone" but that only demonstrates that he hasn't thought too deeply about how a flat tax would work.
JFC. [ROFLMAO] Uh, Eric, I don't happen to have my libertarian thought depth finder on me [sniggers] and I don't mean to take you on too much of a deep dive into English or Economics [snorts] but you know that tax rates, taxes, and spending are three different things, right?
ctrl+f 'spending': 1 Result - It would be tremendous to have a federal income tax rate of less than 10 percent, of course, but that would be a reckless move unless paired with dramatic cuts to government spending.
LOL! Oh so you do know there's a difference! Thanks a load to Eric Boehm for the mark twain of political thought!
You fucking clowns kill me!
A “flat tax” sounds nice. All your income taxed at one flat rate. What could be simpler? But a flat tax simply removes the progressive structure (different rates for different income levels and/or types of income). This has two problems. First, much of the tax code exists simply to define what constitutes "income". Second, if anything is deductible, such as charitable donations, then much of the tax code will continue to be required to define exactly how this should work. Mountains of paperwork and 10s of thousands of pages of tax code will be involved in defining what is deductible, etc. just as it does today. Armies of accountants and attorneys and IRS agents will remain in place.
As an example, if every penny that lands in your hands is taxable, then when Grandma gives little Johnny a birthday card with $10 in it, Johnny must file a tax return and account for that $10, and Grandma may be required to file a correspond 1099MISC to document that she transferred monies to Johnny.
As an example, if every penny that lands in your hands is taxable,
How about only dollars that land in your hands as part of a written, enforceable employment or business contract are taxable?
So capital gains excluded?
Failure to do so on either party’s part obviously is tax evasion and a clear failure to comply with the tax code. If this situation is undesirable, then exclusions must be written and further, the definition of “gift” must be codified so as to avoid certain abuses that would inevitably occur.
And, audits would have to be stepped up agressively.
After all, even the "poorest" among us, will find ways to "cheat" on their taxes. Justifying by saying, "I'm happy to pay taxes to support my government. But, XYA company paid no income taxes last year and that's not fair. Why should I pay when they use loopholes to get out of paying any income taxes".
I have a lot of direct experience with this very utterance from many, many ordinary people.
One of the things I find most fascinating and, frustrating with the Reason commentary, is how out of touch with the thoughts and actions of mainstream America so many commenters here seem to be. Like a bunch of college undergrads after smoking a joint discussing these subjects and being sure that they are smarter and have better answers than anyone else for all that is wrong with the world. (I might have some experience with that too.)
Now consider the nature of a gift exclusion that allows small amounts to be gifted without a need to report as income on the part of the recipient (or file a 1099MISC). First, how small is small? $10, $100, $1000, is that indexed to inflation? Can Grandma give $1000 *and* Grandpa give $1000 each? How often can a gift be given? Or is the limit a cumulative annual amount? If it's $10, then lots of people will have to file 1099 and cause way more work than it's worth. If it's $1000, a lot of people will start black-marketing "gifts": e.g. maybe I can convince my boss to "gift" me the maximum amount every year? Etc. Etc.
If I loaned $750 to someone, who paid me back $1000 (i.e. repay $750 and pay $250 in interest), the $1000 check is not all income to me right? Income in this case would be $250, the interest paid, the other $750 is simply returning my money. What if I loaned my brother $5000, with a contract, interest payment and everything, then 5 years later decide that he doesn't have to pay it back? Is that a gift? Have I violated the gifting rules? Is that loan income to him? Is it a loss for me? Can I use it to offset other income? Etc. Etc.
What about a lottery winner, say $1000 on scratch off. Surely that's all income? But current tax law says that if he spent $750 buying tickets, the net gambling income is only $250. It cost $750 to "earn" $250. What if he won $1000 but lost $10,000? Current tax law says too bad on $9000, but he owes no tax on the $1000 winnings. Current tax law looks at your gambling income as if you were playing a long poker game: win or lose hands during the game, doesn't matter, what matters is what you have at the end of the game (tax year).
It's actually kinda hilarious how, in ranting against his flat tax, this turns into a rant about the complexities of the current tax code.
Like it's not entirely clear whether you hate the current system or Ron DeSantis or all of the above (and that's the way you want to keep it) more.
Then you missed the point. My rant was not about the flat tax, but was in fact a rant against the current tax code: the various flat taxes proposed over time are nothing more than the current tax code, but with one tax bracket. Tax brackets are probably the least complicated part of the tax code.
When someone proposes a "flat tax", they often say things that they *think* are simplifying the situation, but only because they haven't thought them through, so you get people saying things like "A flat 10% tax on every dollar you make, no deductions...so simple!"
I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing simple about that, it raises endless questions, and I tried to give a few examples of those sorts of questions, with the ultimate terminal point that you'll inevitably end up with something rivalling the complexity of the current tax code (maybe you shave off a few parts here and there if you're lucky).
And probably the biggest sticking point of an "income tax" is defining "income". Is it wages? Is it tips? Is it capital gains? Is it gifts? Is it interest earned? Is it gambling winnings? Insurance payouts? Are there things that might offset income, like capital losses? You'll need decisions and concrete definitions for those in a "flat tax", and you'll need to modify those definitions rapidly as people inevitably seek out shortcomings in those definitions that will allow them to avoid taxes (i.e., you'll need to close loopholes).
Thus, the point: a flat tax is almost certainly not at all any better than the current tax code, at least in terms of complexity or compliance costs, intrusive record keeping and reporting, etc.
Do not take that to mean I'm a fan of the current tax code, 100% the opposite.
Then you missed the point.
He says and then proceeds to refute me by doing, repeatedly, exactly what I said.
If anything, Ronnie D has done a decent job of throwing up a Rohrschach Inkblot for people to screech at the amount of whitespace he included and/or left out around the inkblot.
But a flat tax simply removes the progressive structure (different rates for different income levels and/or types of income). This has two problems. First, much of the tax code exists simply to define what constitutes “income”.
True, but we can reduce that simply to "wages or net revenue".
Second, if anything is deductible, such as charitable donations, then much of the tax code will continue to be required to define exactly how this should work.
Let's get rid of tax deductible contributions altogether, as well as tax exempt status. Neither makes sense.
Is a large bonus given to me by my employer "wages"? What if my employer allowed me to purchase blocks of corporate stock at a discount? How much of that would be "wages"? Are cash tips "wages"? Would unemployment insurance payouts be "wages"? If my employer pays for my health insurance, is that "wages"? What if my employer provides me with a company car, or free lunches, or a fridge with free sodas? Or allows me to live in a company-owed house?
Let me be clear that I think any form of income tax is a bad idea. But it can be greatly simplified.
What if my employer provides me with a company car, or free lunches, or a fridge with free sodas? Or allows me to live in a company-owed house?
Any cash payment, discount, gift, reimbursement, health insurance, company car, corporate housing, etc. from the employer to you should be considered wages, valued at demonstrable market prices. The employer is responsible for doing the calculation and telling you what your effective wages are. IRS enforcement is against the employer. There are no deductions.
Would unemployment insurance payouts be “wages”?
No. Insurance payouts are not wages.
"...the new rate would have to be less than the lowest current marginal federal tax rate of 10 percent, which applies to the first $11,600 earned by single filers or $23,200 earned by married couples."
The 10 percent applies after the standard deduction, right? So it's not "the first...". It's 10% after deducting $12,950 for a single person in 2022. Or am I missing something?
Come on Ron, you're a smart guy. Let someone educate you on the Fair Tax way to collect taxes. I will guarantee you that when "Joe Six Pack" understands the Fair Tax he will flood you with votes and support. Don't allow the media left to bastardize the Fair Tax but you embrace it and call them liars and big state people. It eliminates the IRS and gives everyone a check on the first of every month for the money that they spend at the retail level. That's about 6-7 thousand a year. The poor will be helped more than anyone. And they will pay zero federal taxes. There is so much to cover I won't attempt it here but suffice it to say that the Fair Tax had 150 pages of rules and our federal tax code now has more than 80,000 pages. April 15th will become just another day and K Street will be put out of business. Why will they be put out of business? Our rock stars in Washington, all 535 of them, Will no longer be able to grant corporations tax advantages. Much More to come.....
Uh, corporations don't pay income taxes. Their customers do.
The CBO agrees (mostly, because they say that wages might take a hot too):
"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
[CBO report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX"]
Just tax those who voted to support the big-plan spenders their rightful due. Oh wait; That might represent far too much Justice in a nation addled with armed-theft fans.
You must live in my wonderfully diverse city. Where armed theft is a teenager's sport. And, they come in every color and flavor.
Get rid of income tax entirely. It literally doesnt matter what you replace it with. The downsides from having an IRS and the vast privacy violations required to enforce income tax are too great.
Tax babies, tax air, tax water, tax internet bandwidth. Doesnt matter. Nothing could be worse for freedom than an income tax.
Eliminate all taxes. Go to 100% deficit spending. PARTY!
Tax babies, tax air, tax water, tax internet bandwidth. Doesnt matter. Nothing could be worse for freedom than an income tax.
Once again and forever: death/estate tax and death tax only. All the arguments against are non-sequitur*. Assuming any tax, taxing an individual once in their life is the minimum. Any argument about rates or exemptions is just that. Otherwise, we are all created equally free before the law and no man is a king.
Want to transfer *all* (rather than 80% or 76% or whatever) your wealth to your kids? Fine, go die somewhere else. Ukraine, the Iran, Mars... don't care. Good luck finding a lower rate with less overhead. We'll remind your kids that they aren't royalty when they come back because they want to put that money to work tax-free. As long as they aren't taking guns away from their neighbors and genociding them, our borders are open and their money is good here.
*Slight sarcasm - As I've indicated elsewhere, this is a bit like the raw milk issue. We all know spending/borrowing is the problem regardless of rates and collection method. Further, we all understand that *any* 20% tax rate (assuming spending/borrowing is controlled) leaves more money on the table than a 25% rate virtually regardless of the collection method.
"death/estate tax and death tax only"
Vegas will be packed with combination hospice/casino. If you can't pass it on, might as well piss it all away!
This silly “FAIRTAX” would be a complete disaster.
See sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge
>DeSantis says the new, single tax rate would mean "lower taxes for everyone" but that only demonstrates that he hasn't thought too deeply about how a flat tax would work.
What is it about DeSantis that scares the everloving shit out of Reason?
He's, like, in third place.
How many of Biden's policies OVER THE LAST FUCKING 50 YEARS has the guy 'thought deeply' about? How many of Newsome's? How many of Haley's?
Finally - STOP TELLING US WHY A CANDIDATE IS SHITE. TELL US WHY WE SHOULD VOTE FOR YOUR PREFERRED CANDIDATE.
What is it about DeSantis that scares the everloving shit out of Reason?
He’s, like, in third place.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
>It's also telling that, months after he initially floated it, DeSantis seemingly hasn't fleshed out the details of his flat tax idea—like what he'd want the new, single tax rate to be. On Thursday, he promised that the new rate would mean "lower taxes for everybody."
That's a stupid fucking complaint.
1. The fastest way to sink your campaign is to put out policy details. Once you do that then you leave yourself open to people bitching about your numbers.
2. What other candidate has proposed policies without making public the details of the proposals? Oh, yeah, all of the others. Biden's whole career has been 'but trust me bro'.
What's wrong with 9-9-9? The late Herman Cain isn't around to sue you for plagiarism now.
>For “everyone” to enjoy lower taxes under a flat tax system, the new rate would have to be less than the lowest current marginal federal tax rate of 10 percent,
Do people who are paying 10% in tax even end up as net taxpayers?
Yes. The working poor without dependents pay the 10% on income above the standard exemption. They also pay the full 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax.
Can people paying 0 taxes pay even less?
'The rich should pay their fair share'
Where's the complaint that Warren Biden and company haven't 'thought deeply' about that policy?
Again, Boehm flatly acknowledges that without addressing spending any discussion of rates is moot/dangerous and then goes Forrest "And thay-at's all eye got to say about thay-at" Gump on the matter.
Seriously, the word "spend" is used exactly once in order to say that messing with rates without also messing with spending is reckless and that's it.
You were expecting, maybe, a "Fuck you, cut spending!" out of a libertarian magazine that hates DeSantis? Will you accept a "Fuck you, that's why." instead?
They voted for Biden, by and large. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
Yes. Warren et. al. were completely disingenuous.
If they really believed that they are not taxed enough, they could have written a check to the treasury any day of the week. The instructions on how to do so are easily found online.
The Flat/Fair Tax was a naive and bad idea when the rate was going to be 17% or 23%. Now it would need to be like 35%.
A flat tax or sales tax only has to replace the revenue that currently comes from the income tax; it doesn't have to balance the budget.
We can't balance the budget with any reasonable level of taxation.
Flat tax and Fair tax are COMPELTELY different things, and about 180 degrees from each other.
The only fair tax is to charge every adult the same amount.
So if you plan to spend 6 trillion dollars a year, and there are 300 million adults, everyone gets a bill for 20 thousand dollars. Suddenly people might not be in favor of spending hikes.
260 million adults. Unless you're sending kids a $20,000 bill you're at $23,000/each. I don't think most people truly understand just how bankrupt the USA is.
$23k/person is the annual deficit.
The federal debt per person is $175000.
The government liabilities per person (debt+pensions at all levels) are around $1000000.
Neither was talking about debt or deficit, but about current spending. "If you plan to spend 6 trillion dollars a year"...the tax load for funding that, sans deficit, would be as shown, depending on how many people you spread it over.
TJJ2000 was talking about "how bankrupt the USA is".
Bankruptcy refers to total debt, not annual deficit.
Total debt, per American adult, is upwards of $1000000 today.
I'm a tax lawyer who, a generation ago, spent 4-1/2 years working in the Office of the Chief Counsel for the IRS. Yes, reducing tax rates and including more income in the tax base by eliminating "loopholes" is good. That was the essence of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, negotiated by President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill. But although our tax system is said to be "voluntary," we will always need an agency whose mission is to ensure there is enough enforcement to keep taxpayers honest. Any politician who proposes eliminating the IRS loses my vote.
But although our tax system is said to be “voluntary,” we will always need an agency whose mission is to ensure there is enough enforcement to keep taxpayers honest.
Why should we be honest if you aren't? How do people volunteer dishonestly? It's like saying I dishonestly declared peace and disarmed myself by giving you my gun. Even if I handed you an empty gun, I have one fewer guns and you have one more and unless you were negotiating in bad faith and going to immediately shoot me with it, the fact that it's empty is immaterial.
Literally go fuck yourself with your "We will always need a tax enforcement agency to keep people honest." by your own premises, dishonest fucks like you are the reason the whole self-fucking ice cream cone is required in the first place.
You are citing journolister, David Weigel?
I stopped reading right there.
First, any flat tax that taxes capital gains as income will be vetoed by DeSantis' corporate overlords
Second the stupidity of thinking that you can eliminate the IRS[without massive non compliance] because you 'simplified' the tax code is staggering
Wait, so other countries mail you a card in the mail telling you your tax. Companies already send the government how much you make. You seem to think it would be such a challenge to just charge everyone a %.
Non-compliance now is because people are looking for loopholes, and every stupid deduction. If you do away with that, it's a lot easier to see if people are paying correctly.
You are right, I doubt the IRS can go away, but it can be drastic reduced
DeSantis is close but he missed the mark. We need an IRS, but we don’t need an income tax. We already know the rich pay most of the income tax anyway. So do away with it for anyone making less than $350,000/year and 99% of our country would not have a tax filing obligation…yes if you make more than $350,000 you are in the top 1%. Now that the IRS is processing 99% less tax filings, put them to work auditing the real cheats, rich people (especially self-employed rich people) and companies. If tax revenues fall short I am a fan of VAT taxes, not flat taxes. Put a small federal tax everything but food and housing. The IRS would now even have the capacity to make sure everyone was properly collecting it. The fact that I have to pay someone to figure out what I owe every year as a middle class person is RIDICULOUS.
You had me till you call rich people the real cheats. They can't be cheating too hard because they pay 99% of the taxes.
Small business under a million, are they considered self rich?
I do argue it's dumb that I have to use Turbo Tax for my middle class taxes. I can do quantum mechanics, calc 3, diff equations - yet the tax code is the messy math I have run across if you have house, investments, breathing
Semafor reporter David Weigel - yeah there is an unbiased source. Weigel is against anything that a Dem doesn't dream up.
You have a flat tax, increase national sales tax - rich buy more things.
Glad Reason, a libertarian mag supposes it. Oh way...
(Doesn't matter with how much the government spends)
Look we are all dancing around the big issue with a Flat Tax. Congress can’t bride people to vote for them with deductions or force behavior on people.
If say everyone has a standard 25K deduction, you can’t ‘encourage’ people to get that EV with a 7500K tax credit etc.
Plus if everyone pays the same – AOC, Warren, Bernie and what ever socialist won’t have anyone to make people angry at like the rich. It would be your fault for not working hard not someone else.
Not that GOP is great or anything, but when Trump limited the SALT deduction, and you had to see the impact of your state income tax - democrats lost their crap. Why so I have to pay for your state tax in my federal bill? Why is that a deduction anyway?