It's Time for a Flat Tax
America’s tax system is already highly progressive. A simpler, flatter structure would be fairer, raise more revenue, and fuel economic growth.

Despite what many believe, the United States is a place where the highest earners—depending on their state of residence—can face Sweden-like levels of taxation, while the lowest earners have effectively no tax liability at all. Income tax brackets have been ratcheting more progressive over time, as successive administrations have lowered bottom rates while keeping top rates more or less the same. A case could be made for the poor to pay more and the rich to pay less.
Obviously, that is going to go down like a lead balloon. Liberals will squeal if the rich are permitted to pay less, and everyone will squeal if the poor are made to pay more. For the first time since Steve Forbes in the 1990s, there are real discussions about flattening the tax code. In the tax law passed during Ronald Reagan's second term, there were only two tax brackets: one at 16 percent and one at 28 percent—the flattest tax rates have been since the income tax was instituted in 1913. It is worth pointing out that the economy grew strongly in the ensuing years, and tax revenue actually rose as the tax code was greatly simplified and loophole deductions and credits were phased out.
President Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has not yet turned his attention to taxes—aside from saying that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will be extended—but it seems a big flattening and simplification is coming if the TCJA is any precedent.
The bottom two rates in the current tax brackets are 10 percent and 12 percent, with the 12 percent bracket phasing out at about $90,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Much of that liability disappears with a large standard deduction, generous child tax credits, and earned income tax credits. The flaw in this system is that people think they pay taxes, when most of it is returned in the form of a refund. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers have an effective tax rate of 3.3 percent, while the effective tax rate for high-income taxpayers has been estimated at between 25 percent and 31 percent.
It should be pointed out that the bottom tax rate is much lower in the U.S. than in other developed countries. In Sweden, the bottom tax rate, applied to the lowest-income taxpayers, is 32 percent. In Britain, it is 20 percent. This is about having skin in the game—if you're not financially contributing to something, whether it is an office coffee pot or a homeowners association, you're likely to be careless with that responsibility.
Even a flat tax is progressive. If I make 10 times as much money as you, I pay 10 times as much in tax. However, under the current system, if I make 10 times as much money as you, I pay 50 times as much in tax—and yet the rich are still excoriated for not paying their "fair share." A good example of a democracy in decline is when the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay an income tax vote for higher taxes on those who do.
A flatter tax code, without deductions and credits, will raise more revenue over time. Most of the tax cut debate is framed around the deficit. The thinking is that if we cut taxes, the deficit will grow. While the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is ostensibly cutting spending, with the goal of balancing the budget, a flattening of the tax code will bring us closer to that goal. Throughout history, with all the different tax brackets we have had over time, the government's take has averaged around 20 percent of gross domestic product. When taxes are high, people find a way to avoid them. When taxes are low, people don't mind paying them. If raising taxes doesn't lead to more revenue, then we shouldn't do it—it is just a paperwork drill and a hassle for everyone.
The simplest and fairest tax code of all is a consumption tax, but it would be very foolish to introduce a consumption tax without first repealing the 16th Amendment. Otherwise, we will have two parallel systems of taxation, and the government will take up to 40 percent of GDP, like in much of Western Europe. We are stuck with the income tax—absent radical political change—so we should try to make it as fair as possible.
It's doubtful that we could ever achieve a completely flat tax—there will always be some progressivity. But flattening it a bit would go a long way toward fairness and economic growth.
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
We NeEd PeRmIsSiOn FrOm CoNgReSs!
To change the tax code? Yes, that’s how America set it up.
No sense of humor I see.
FDR fixed that.
Precisely why Trump has EO Tariff powers.
Wrong! America was set up to allow Congress to abandon its responsibilities and cede power to the Executive Branch whenever it feels like it and whenever people like you approve of the power grab. Then, all of a sudden, when people like you do NOT like how the Executive Branch is using the power ceded to it by Congress you, all of a sudden, OBJECT because it's suddenly not the way America was set up. Go peddle it somewhere where the readers are unable to think, like the New York Times.
“ whenever people like you approve of the power grab”
People like me? People like me want the Constitution followed, the separation of powers upheld, and the imperial Presidency eradicated. I don’t particularly care who’s doing it or why they say it’s a good thing. Trumps’s BS is just as much of an overreach by the executive as Biden’s was and neither was justified.
If the "Constitution" was "followed" a whole heck of a lot more than just USAID and US DoE would be chopped out. Trump is until-judged acting within his Constitutional powers but MORE to the point his actions are 100% following the Constitution where-as Biden's was an act of Treason through and through.
" A good example of a democracy in decline is when the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay an income tax vote for higher taxes on those who do."
Says it all; aside from some Tom Hanks snarky elitists who have considerable escape velocity, who do you think is voting for all of the assholes in Congress?
No representation without taxation! No. I suppose that won't work either.
It did for many years.
It is noteworthy that the really, really rich- people making north of 2 Million a year- pay a lot of taxes, but pay quite low amounts as a percentage of their income. This is because at those levels, much of the income is passive that can be structured, and they can afford to move big amounts of money around to setup major tax shelters.
^THIS. Yes; I vote to eliminate all deductions and flat-tax across the board. Individuals who spend money to be capable of going-to work are no different than businesses who spend money to be capable of creating. So I never understood why one was deducted and the other wasn't. Not to mention just how much simpler and less intrusive and common-sense the whole tax thing would be.
The way the taxes are done now literally invites witch-hunt prosecution. Most of the tax laws are blind and down-right contradictory.
"A good example of a democracy in decline is when the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay an income tax vote for higher taxes on those who do."
EXACTLY why the US Constitution never made 'wealth distribution' [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] an enumerated power.
No, this is false.
A consumption tax requires an incredibly nosy bureaucracy to audit not just stores, but flea markets, yard sales, and trading dental work for roof repairs. It makes governments want to ban cash transactions.
It's not just rural rednecks doing handyman work under the table. A mechanic who worked on my car for about 20 years always preferred cash and was happiest when I didn't want a receipt and bought parts myself. The last got water heater I bought, the shop asked me if i needed help installing it, saying he could stop by in his way home from work and strongly implying cash would lower the price.
A property tax can use self-assessed values, and there are numerous enforcement schemes. The main advantage is it's a simple tax and can be paid anonymously; all the government cares about is that it is paid, not who pays it. If not paid, hey guess what, they know where the property is.
You might be confusing a consumption tax with a value added tax.
Implementation of a consumption tax would involve all of the income tracking that we do now and adding tracking of net saving.
Given those 2 numbers, the difference is consumption, on which one would pay the specified tax rate. There is no need to track hundreds of individual transactions that one makes in a given year.
A VAT is assessed and paid transaction-by-transaction.
A VAT tax *is* a consumption tax. They are the same thing, one (VAT) is just a specific subcategory of the other (consumption).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumption-tax.asp
1) We already have an incredibly nosy bureaucracy. You will have it with any tax system.
2) We wouldn't create anything new, because we already have states all over the country collecting sales taxes. Most consumptive taxes floated to not charge tax on the exchange of used goods. It is relatively easy to determine what is new and what is used.
3) The intrusiveness of a consumptive tax is much lower than income tax, because you don't need to define what income is, or guess what qualified expenses are. The vast majority
Property taxes are great, if you want to lock taxation and property ownership down to the rich. To get our current budget, you'd be talking about paying 20 - 40% of the value of your property every day.
The idea that the government would let people self assess the value of their property is a laughable farce.
Five times Congess has enacted a property tax, most recently in 1861. It didn't even trust states to do the assessments but had the federal hovernment do them. The amount collected had to be apportionment by state population so wealthy people in poor states got screwed.
A consumption tax requires an incredibly nosy bureaucracy to audit not just stores, but flea markets, yard sales, and trading dental work for roof repairs.
Bullshit. You've obviously never worked in retail in a state that collects sales tax. All that matters to the tax collectors is the total of your sales. It would require no nosier bureaucracy than currently exists to collect sales tax.
I never worked in retail but I did design and install some of the systems that major retailers use and you are wrong when you claim that all that matters is "the total of your sales". Sales taxes are insanely complex and require determinations of the tax category of each specific item being purchased. That number must be properly recorded at both the item and purchaser level (purchaser so their subtotal can be shown on the receipt, item so you can recreate your calculations for the auditor).
I will concede that it's in theory "no nosier than currently exists" but that assessment misses the Black Market Effect. Most people stay in the legitimate market and pay the sales tax because it's a comparatively low number - a few percent in most jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions with higher sales tax rates (upper single digits) have the highest problems with black markets. Replacing federal income tax with a sales tax would push that into the 30s. The incentive for black markets would explode. And that's what will drive a far nosier bureaucracy.
It's not that way in my state. All items are either taxable, or they're groceries and they're not. Just two categories. If you don't sell any food, there's only one category. Filling out the paperwork is easy. Apparently it's different where you worked.
You are overlooking the fact that repealing the income tax would lower the cost of production and distribution of all items—the cost of everyone in the supply chain paying their income taxes would no longer be embedded in the consumer price. Producers and distributors would be able to lower their prices, and would be forced to do so by competition. If the consumption tax were revenue-neutral, there's no reason to assume prices would go up, and certainly not by the full amount of the consumption tax.
Flat tax is slavery. Fuck off slaver. FAIR Tax now!
Fair, you say? What is your definition of “fair”?
Since you asked.
See Stupid's comment above about the adverse consequences of pinning everything on a sales tax. It might be "fair" (for a particular definition of fair) but it is very complicated to implement and will push government even further into the tracking of our economic lives.
is very complicated to implement and will push government even further into the tracking of our economic lives.
No, it would be much simpler and do the opposite.
A consumption tax is the exact opposite of fair. It is regressive, hitting the middle and lower class much harder and making it harder for them to get ahead. Calling something patently unfair “fair” is typical dishonesty.
A flat tax would be the definition of fair. Every dollar of all income, regardless of type, is taxed exactly the same and there are no loopholes or sweetheart deals because there are no deductions. Letting everyone keep the first 25k or so tax-free would also benefit those trying to hire for low-wage positions.
Never mind what a consumption tax would do to the cost of living. Imagine every house, car, cell phone plan, and grocery bill was 20% higher. What sort of barrier to entry would that create for most people’s largest investment (house) and means of travel (car)?
Tracking "Every dollar of all income" is about as intrusive as you can get. No more yard sales or flea markets, not more side hustles, and cash is almost treason. And now you want to exempt the first $25K or so and still claim no loopholes?
Face it. Taxes require some kind of auditing and enforcement. Until you factor that in, your definition of "fair" is incomplete.
“ No more yard sales or flea markets, not more side hustles, and cash is almost treason”
Uh, they wouldn’t track any more income with a flat tax than they do with the present system. There wouldn’t be any change from now, so “no more …” is nonsense.
“ And now you want to exempt the first $25K or so and still claim no loopholes?”
That would be a way to stimulate the low-wage worker market, which struggles to get people, and provide a baseline cost-of-living income that the government couldn’t touch. Loopholes are special-interest carveouts like the carried interest loophole. A floor to taxable income that applies equally to everyone isn’t a “loophole” unless you want to distort the term to make it meaningless.
“ Face it. Taxes require some kind of auditing and enforcement. Until you factor that in, your definition of "fair" is incomplete.”
Yes. And unless your definition of “fair” is synonymous with “no taxation”, what I’m suggesting wouldn’t change the existing system one bit. It would change how the income that we have always reported gets taxed, not the data collection itself.
You understand the difference, right?
The trick of a "Flat Income Tax" is the same trick as ANY income tax- Defining income. Much of what people insist is subsidies or kickbacks these days is actually tracking expenses to be deducted from revenues to figure out your net income. Those complexities will still exist whether you have 4 tax brackets or one. In fact, flatten the tax brackets and you will most certainly have many more eels demanding new definitions of acceptable deductions.
That’s why a flat tax is predicated on the idea that there would be no deductions. It’s the deductions and exemptions and other carveouts for special interests that are the problem.
All income, regardless of source or type, would be taxed at exactly the same rate and that rate would be the same for every taxpayer. There would be no subcategories of income or taxpayer. No married/single/head of household. You, as an individual, would pay a set percentage of every dollar you make (or every dollar after a certain amount that would be the same for everyone).
Basically, if anyone says “this person/situation/income level should be treated differently”, the answer would be “No”. All or none, not the special interest nonsense we have today.
The Fair Tax™ has been around for better than 30 years, and for all that time people still make these dumb statements that are just flat wrong about the tax.
1) The Fair Tax includes a prebate paid to everyone, up to the level of taxes one would spend at the poverty rate. It is basically doing exactly what you ask.
2) The Fair Tax does not tax used goods, so this "muh Flea Markets" bullshit is just that- bullshit. (And btw, every farmers market or flea market I've been to in the last few years has people taking credit cards)
3) The "Cost of Living" impact would be minimal. People are paying more for their goods and services, but they are also getting more money back on their taxes.
4) There have been numerous cross population cross temporal studies performed. The people who get impacted by the Fair Tax are the old who sit on huge amounts of wealth, but structure their tax payments so that they pay a very low effective tax rate. These are also the people forcing the (relatively poor) younger generations to fund their SSN.
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax. It is inherently unfair. It is regressive. It leaves those who have to spend every dollar they make for daily living paying taxes on 100% of their income and Donny Nepo Baby paying on a small percentage because their parents hooked them up.
Consumption taxes are inherently flawed and reward those who were born to rich parents and punish those who weren’t. If you can’t see why a regressive tax is inherently unfair, it’s because you don’t want to.
Letting everyone keep the first 25k or so tax-free
The same thing can be done with a consumption tax through rebates.
But a consumption tax is a regressive tax, so it would still burden the rich less than the middle class regardless of what rebates you put in. Consumption taxes are a terrible and deeply unfair way to tax people. Unless you are already wealthy, in which case you’d be great with it.
And if you don’t think the “rebates” would magically become just as unfair as the exemptions and carveouts of the present system, you’re lying to yourself.
it would still burden the rich less than the middle class regardless of what rebates you put in.
Bullshit. The burden would vary according to the size of the rebates, and the extent to which your income exceeded the rebate threshold. It could be made as progressive as you wish. I don't believe in magic.
Or you could just have one rate and one floor that applied equally to all people, regardless of their income. That is the simplest (and fairest) system possible.
There's a big fallacy in your statement. That's why getting rid of the Income Tax is important. I wouldn't mind if prices were higher because of a "consumption tax" because if the income tax went away I would have more money to cover the cost.
What fallacy? A consumption tax is regressive. That’s just a reality.
Imposing a regressive tax as opposed to a flat tax, where every dollar is treated equally regardless of if it’s dollar #1 or dollar #1,000,000 and regardless of who is paying it, is saying, “Screw you, middle class and under! I got mine, so suck it!”.
If you don’t understand what a regressive tax is and what it does, you can educate yourself here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp
I had hoped that fair tax would be a good solution. Alas it was awful. The whole concept of a "prebate" is really unworkable. A national sales tax excluding food (except in restaurants) is better. Look at how most states impose a sales tax. Simpler. No administrative burden of a prebate.
Fair tax isn’t fair. It’s a bullshit propaganda name for a regressive tax that’s inherently unfair.
Trump ran on the platform of helping the working class. How does raising their taxes and lowing taxes on the rich achieve that goal?
Working class people benefit from an expanding economy that actually produces jobs to work at.
Lowering taxes on the rich doesn’t stimulate the economy.
STEALING MORE certainly doesn't "stimulate an economy".
Ah, the trickle down theory.
It is BS.
There is no economic theory called trickle down.
Indeed. Trickle Down is only a theory of 'armed-theft' gangs.
*EARNING* is a theory of a Fair and Just economic system.
Trickle down is another name for supply side economics (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp). But you should know that.
It doesn’t work and never has. If you want to see a perfect example, recall the Golden Age of Kansas that Sam Brownback ushered in. You don’t remember? That’s because it was an abject failure, like every other implementation of supply side economics.
"You don’t remember?"
Nope. Because the garbage you are peddling is just a figment of your BS indoctrination.
Unlike Detroit.
Unlike Venezuela.
Unlike the fall of the USSR.
Unlike the German Nazi's.
Good grief Brownback was governor from 2011 to 2018 - Oh the horror he left behind. /s
Perhaps you need to visit Kansas today and gain some reality.
Yes, the horror he left behind. That’s my point. Kansas was much, much worse off after Brownback’s supply side policies. And it started out as a typical red state economic failure. Supply side policies just made it worse. They literally haven’t recovered after almost a decade.
You make my point for me.
My sarcasm makes your points?
Of course it does because your point has no other bearing.
“ Perhaps you need to visit Kansas today and gain some reality.”
I’ve been there several times. I’m not sure if the disintegrating roads or the empty storefronts or the abject poverty was more horrifying. Kansas ranks in the bottom 1/3 of the country in most economic categories. And that’s an improvement since Brownback left office. When he was governor it was in the bottom 20%.
Pure BS. Kansas ranks 33 out of 50 States as you already state "1/3 of" other States are worse off than Kansas who didn't have Brownback.
Now do any on the list I gave like Detroit. The Kansas limited government economy ?problem? is nothing but a leftard indoctrinated delusion. Detroit and whole nations falling under leftard economics isn't.
Nice idea but it doesn't work the way you think. Rich people sometimes sequester their money and actually take money from the economy. It is the middle class that is always spending money that keeps the economy moving.
Haha. God, you people are fucking ugly.
And you know it. Fucking gollum ugly.
Who do you think is buying boats, expensive cars, McMansions, expensive dinners and luxury goods? Not the middle class.
More importantly, who is investing in production?
"Rich people sometimes ... actually (*JUST*) take money from the economy." UN-EARNED...
Ya know like 'for the poor' in D.C. getting 2.4 to 5 Times the wealth of any other State in the Union and EARNING absolutely NONE oF IT!
An individual (no married or head of household status, just each person paying taxes on their personal income, with married people splitting investment and passive income equally) flat tax starting at about $25k with no deductions (personal, child, medical bills, etc.) would be the best and fairest tax system possible.
There is the fetid stench of supply-side language throughout the article, but since this is about personal income tax it doesn’t have the ability to screw things up. Supply-side stupidity is most damaging through corporate welfare and giveaways that only benefit the investor class, not on the personal side. Mostly because individuals are the demand side and corporations are the supply side, of course.
But the benefits of a flat tax to the average taxpayer are huge. Besides the simplicity of filing taxes (which delights everyone each April), it sets up a system where once you hit the threshold, every dollar is equal. Earned, unearned, passive, investment, residuals, speculative, gambling, or whatever, all income is taxed the same. You can’t get much more fair than that.
As a side note, saying a regressive tax like a consumption tax is “simplest and fairest tax code of all” is straight-up bullshit. It is the least fair system, especially to the lower and middle class.
A consumption tax means that those who are living paycheck to paycheck are paying taxes on almost 100% of their income while those who inherited a half a billion dollars from their parents are paying taxes on a small percentage of theirs. It helps the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, so it is embraced by those who already have wealth, but it screws the vast majority of citizens.
Imagine paying a 20% tax on your purchase of a house or a car or your cell phone service or an Uber or a night out or groceries (most necessities tax exemptions don’t include processed or prepared foods, so most of the average American’s grocery purchases would be taxed) or gas or … you get the idea. For most middle class Americans, it would be a brutal blow.
Never mind the impact on all the markets for high-dollar purchases. How much house can a first-time homebuyer afford if the price rises 20k per 100? The market would shift dramatically towards renting, eliminating one of the better ways to generate wealth for anyone who isn’t already financially comfortable.
Supply-side economics and consumption taxes are the worst boondoggles ever foisted off on Americans. And because the people who make policy are usually in the upper third of earners and the ones who would get screwed aren’t as knowledgeable about fiscal policy, their “screw the little people” ideas won’t die the painful and humiliating deaths they deserve.
Life isn’t fair.
What a substantive reply.
It’s all it deserves.
So you’re telling me you can’t understand the issue without saying it. Got it.
We understand you're a Marxist. Yes.
Your goal is always redistribution. An ethos of jealousy.
“ We understand you're a Marxist.”
Yes, the guy who is a vocal and unabashed advocate of free market capitalism is a Marxist. You really don’t think before you speak, do you?
I have always spoken in favor of balanced budgets, free markets, and a smaller government. If you can’t understand why that isn’t Marxism, you are as clueless as your paleocon beliefs would suggest.
“ An ethos of jealousy.”
I made enough money through building and selling my stake in a company (you know, capitalism at its finest) to retire in my 40s so I could volunteer at a Lab rescue. I am very aware that I have a great life and feel no shame that I did it through capitalism. So who exactly am I jealous of?
I really can’t figure out if you come off as ignorant because you’re a bargain-level bot or because you’re a low-knowledge dupe.
Who gets the money Nelson?
People who send it to Guatemala for trans surgeries. Fuck you, cut spending.
What money? What the hell are you talking about?
You're not very intelligent. Stick to making up stories to hide your marxism lol.
Free market? Lol.
By treating different classes differently?
Good one.
Amazing how all you Marxists have the exact same story. I'm sure you sent extra money to the Treasury of your own volition before demanding others do what you ask.
What does economic class have to do with free market capitalism? And since I’m advocating for a flat tax, that treats every single person exactly the same regardless of income or socio-economic class, you seem to be ignorant of what is or isn’t about class.
You seem very afraid people demanding more freebies will realize those freebies aren't free.
What freebies are you talking about? We’re talking about tax policy, not entitlements.
You're really fucking stupid aren't you.
Where do taxes end up? Why are you screaming for even more progressive taxation? When you continue to take more from one group and less from another in a welfare state, how is the distribution?
You're a fucking idiot.
You can’t actually be as stupid as you seem. This is a discussion about the fairest way to tax people. It isn’t even remotely about spending. You do understand that they are completely different topics, right?
I’ll try an analogy. If your company is having a meeting about how to structure fees to generate revenue, you taking about whether or not the company should buy office supplies isn’t even remotely relevant to the discussion at hand.
There are plenty of discussions about spending and I’m pretty sure we would be on the same side in those (less spending, balanced budgets). But this isn’t a spending discussion, nitwit.
I can think of no tax that is more immoral than the idea that I should be punished for trying to provide a better life for my wife and children.
Highly emotional and literally irrelevant. Who cares why you are trying to make more money? Do you really think that because you reference your family you are somehow on the moral high ground? Why? Taxation isn’t moral or immoral. It’s a reality that no one likes, but it isn’t immoral.
Once you accept the idea that the government has to be funded (and, since pretty much every American doesn’t want to go from the best country in the world to a failed state, that’s a given), the question becomes this: How?
The Sixteenth Amendment is a real thing and it isn’t going anywhere. If you want to wishwank about alternate realities where it doesn’t exist, do it where fantasy is applauded.
So since the government has to be funded and income tax is the Constitutional means by which it’s funded, what is the fairest way to achieve the goal of funding the government?
The answer to that, in my view, is a flat tax that applies equally to all people. No special interest deductions or higher rates for rich people. No different treatment of earned and unearned income. All things apply to all people or it isn’t part of the tax code. To me, it doesn’t get fairer than that. Equal treatment, equal tax rate, equal skin in the game. Not regressive. Not progressive. Just flat.
You missed the BIGGEST issue.
"Once you accept the idea that the government has to be funded"
funded for what?
To ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Or go on 'armed-theft' sprees for the *special* people ('poor') so they can AVOID Justice and Take Liberty away from everyone else.
And that’s a spending discussion. My personal opinion is funded for less and with a balanced budget, but we aren’t discussing spending. We’re discussing the tax system.
And yet the spending is the BIGGEST issue.
"Imagine paying a 20% tax on your purchase of a house..."
We do already. It is baked into the cost of labor (workers pay income tax), and the cost of lumber, copper, appliances,(companies pay corporate income tax), import duties (president Trump), and myriad other ways that the government sips at the cycle of the movement of money and resources throughout the economy.
Before heading down the path of a huge new stream of revenue for the government (VAT, consumption, sales, etc.), need to predicate that on turning off the spigot somewhere else (repeal the 16th for example.)
“ repeal the 16th for example”
That’s never going to happen and you know it. So in the real world, do you have any suggestions that would be fairer than a flat tax? Or, alternatively, do you think regressive taxes are fair and, if so, why?
I appreciate the effort here but I feel like it's an abolish the income tax wish list like all of the other abolish articles we've seen at Reason. If that were to actually happen of course Reason Editors scream their heads off.
... and everyone will squeal if the poor are made to pay more.
No I won't. The poor consume the most government resources/services. They ought to pay their fair share!
Only a fool would read this and be convinced of anything. What about captital gains taxes? How about FICA? Even though Social Security/Medicare taxes are supposedly separate budget items we all know that if you want to getthose taxes back when you retire we need general revenues. So for practical purposes they should be included in this analysis.
The ideas are intriguing but making a flat tax work in reality, like libertarianism in general, doesn't work. It would get carved up with all kinds of deductions and exceptions until we are right back where we started. We don't trust the wealthy in this country. Period. They have sold us out and have no allegiance to America. No doubt they are funding articles like this.
“ What about captital gains taxes”
That’s the point. Capital gains would be exactly the same as any other type of income, and taxed at the same rate. That would be disadvantageous to the investor class (as would the elimination of deductions and other loopholes), but that’s a feature, not a bug.
Income is guaranteed. Money for work. Investments have inherent risk. We get it. You are a scared little puppy who wants no risk and despise others who do, so you want to take from them like a common Marxist.
I am the investor class, you nitwit. I haven’t had any earned income in a decade. I live off of my investments. And as a fervent capitalist, I think that’s a good thing.
However, I am also aware that I am the beneficiary of tax laws that are designed to benefit those, like me, who live off of unearned income (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unearnedincome.asp) and are disadvantageous to those who live off earned income (or who, as the saying goes, “work for a living”).
And I think the country would be better served by a tax system that treats all income the same and doesn’t tilt the field against those who earn a paycheck. Yes, that is contrary to what is in my personal best interest, but it is a better and fairer way to tax people.
Nobody believes your act blue script dumdum.
You're not advantaged due to the law dumdum.
If you spend 10 years building a business taking zero salary, why do you want none of the money for your labor reinvested in your business?
You miss simple economic concepts because they aren't in your act blue script dumdum.
“ You're not advantaged due to the law dumdum.”
All of my income is from investments. I pay zero in FICA (FICA only gets taken out of earned income). I only pay the capital gains rate, which is significantly less than the rate someone who made the exact same amount in earned income (like wages) would pay. So yes, I am very advantaged due to the tax laws. You’re just too stupid to understand how you’re getting screwed under the present system.
“ If you spend 10 years building a business taking zero salary, why do you want none of the money for your labor reinvested in your business?”
You don’t even realize the number of ways this statement is ignorant, do you? You’re that clueless.
Of course you draw a salary when you build and run a business. No one can live without an income. Your bank doesn’t say, “Oh, you’re building a business? Well in that case never mind paying your mortgage. No worries!”. Same with gas and groceries and other everyday expenses. They all expect you to pay your bills.
And of course the money that a company makes is reinvested into the business. That money wouldn’t be taxed in individual taxes at all, since it wouldn’t be yours (except incorporation structures like S corps).
So what are you talking about with zero salary and reinvestment? Besides displaying your ignorance for everyone to see, of course.
“ You're not advantaged due to the law dumdum.”
I’ll get specific, since it may be easier for someone like you.
You and I both make $100k. Yours is from wages (earned income) and mine is from investments (unearned income). We’ll assume we’re both single and childless to make it simpler. With the $14.6k standard deduction, we would each have $85,400 in taxable income.
You would pay $13,847 in taxes and $7,650 in FICA. Your $100k in wages would net you $78,503.
I would pay $12,810 in capital gains taxes and $0 in FICA. My $100k in investment income would net me $86,390.
With the same income, I would have $7,887 more in the bank than you.
Does that make it clearer for you?
I disagree with this “unearned income” terminology.
You earned it by risking the possibility of losing that money on your bet (investment), just as surely as I earned it by working 60 hours+ as an entrepreneur.
Unearned income is a basic term in economics. If you don’t like it, no one cares. Terms don’t change based on your opinion.
Educate yourself, it will make you look less ignorant.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unearnedincome.asp
You are both wrong. I just watched an old Gary Becker interview and then saw an Obama top financial man say that Biden's infrastructure mega-mega-billions was a flop. ANd both said the same things: It is this constant stupendous increase in regulations and laws and oversight that makes most small and middle sized businesses hesitate to hire or expand.
Well of you feel guilty you are free to write a check to the feds
Are you going to adjust the capital gains taxes for inflation? Paycheck income is taxed in the same year it is received, thus inflationary impact is minimal. A stock bought 10 years ago and sold for a 30% gain this year is likely to actually have no real gain, so why should the illusory 30% "gain" be taxed at all?
Capital gains should be inflation adjusted.
Also, if we're taxing dividends at the same rate as income, there should be zero corporate taxes. End double taxation of corporate profits.
Companies don’t have to pay you dividends. If they choose to, the taxes are your responsibility because it’s your income.
Double taxation isn’t actually a thing. Each person or entity that receives income pays taxes on it. Those people or entities then can choose to do whatever they choose with that money. How they choose to use it will most likely also be taxed (sales tax, for example).
Taxation exists on virtually every level of commerce. There will never be a dollar that is only taxed once. It’s silly to think otherwise.
40% of people don't pay taxes because they are poor. Trying to get money out of them is like the proverbial blood from stone
Rich people get taxed more because they have all the money.
And poor people notice the taxes they pay far more than the rich people, though the latter gripe about it more.
All that is kind of irrelevant, though. There is a whole lot to be said about the “skin in the game” argument that was made above. While I can see having a small amount of income untaxed (maybe about 25k or so), the argument that if you want a better life you need to work for it isn’t a bad one.
We don't need a flat tax, we need a simplified tax.
The problem with the income tax is not the tax brackets it all the deductions, deferments, incentives, etc. Get rid of all the nonsense and reduce the tax code to a page or two. There is no reason the tax code should be thousands of pages long.
The issue the the tax code is more about social engineering than generating revenue. For example, the goverment wants people to own houses so there is a deduction for mortgages but they don't care about cars so there is no deduction for car loans. There are thousands of these types of items in the tax code incentivizing some things and discouraging others. Get rid of all of them.
So a flat tax? Because that’s what you’re describing.
No, this is constantly said by people who have only ever taken a salary for a living, or lived off the savings they built up.
Our current tax system has 6 brackets. Determining my tax obligation is a simple act of consulting my taxable income, then looking up a table. It can be done easily on a piece of paper, and trivially in a spreadsheet.
The problem is figuring out my taxable income. Yes, there are a lot of loopholes and deductions and carve-outs, but even if you COULD eliminate these tax-reductions, there is still enormous complexity in determining what is "Income".
If all you have ever done is draw a salary, it is easy. But for millions of business owners and rich people living off complex investments, determining income is not trivial.
Just look at the simplest "Rich Man Poor Man" examples of real estate. You bought a house, and you are renting it out. You spent 1.5 million on the house as a loan. Is the loan income or a liability? Is the house you've received income, just as if someone had handed you a 1.5 Million dollar property for nothing?
You earned $30,000 in rent off the home. Is that taxable income? What about the $20,000 in expenses you spent fixing up the house? What about the $300,000 down payment you put on the house?
Okay, your expenses this year were $320,000 so obviously your income was -$290k so no tax this year. What about next year? Can you carry forward your losses to future years? How much? How many years?
And wait, next year you make $30,000 in rent, but you have to pay $10k in property taxes to your state. So are you taxed on $30k or $20k?
In 10 years you decide to sell the house for $1.6 Million. Did you just make $1.6 Million in income? Or $100k?
Now there are simple and complex ways to answer these questions. GENERALLY speaking, when you choose the simple answer, you create situations where the pretty rich- those people sitting on a couple million in liquid assets- can avoid most of their tax obligation by structuring their income. As soon as you have more liquid cash than your yearly income, you can do things like make giant payments (or take giant losses) at the end of the taxable year to show a significantly low income, then recoup these losses at the start of next year.
A simple example: If I have $5 Million spread out in 10 different Mutual funds that track basically the same stocks, I can sell one of them while it is down (recording a loss) then immediately buy into another of the stocks. If you then spread this strategy across multiple sectors, you are generally guaranteed that at the end of a tax period, you can take significant losses and offset much of your income. (And by the way, you could do this loss harvesting even easier with the same stocks. This is called a wash sale, and it is illegal under current (OMG COMPLEX!) rules issued by the IRS.)
Much of the rules and regulations of the Tax code are not about deductions and loopholes, they are around recognizing income in a "fair" way so that rich people cannot exploit their ability to structure income. All this complexity will remain after dropping to a flat tax.
"Is the loan income or a liability?”
A liability. A loan isn’t income and never has been. The money you make from renting it out, however, is. That’s not complicated at all.
“ You earned $30,000 in rent off the home. Is that taxable income?”
Is that profit and you are running it as an S corp? Then yes. You are taxed on profits and a S corp is taxed on your individual taxes. But there are a lot of other corporate structures that wouldn’t be taxed individually. Still not complicated at all.
“ So are you taxed on $30k or $20k?”
Probably even less than 20k, since you only pay taxes on profits and property taxes aren’t the only costs that would decrease your profits. And, since we’re talking individual taxes, only if you made your rental business an S corp. otherwise it wouldn’t have anything to do with individual taxes. Still very simple.
“ In 10 years you decide to sell the house for $1.6 Million. Did you just make $1.6 Million in income? Or $100k?”
100k. These are very basic and simple questions. I’ve never had an S corp nor sold a house and I know all of this just from understanding the basics of taxes. Why do you seem to think it’s so hard to understand?
“ Now there are simple and complex ways to answer these questions.”
No, there aren’t. They’re very simple questions to answer.
“ As soon as you have more liquid cash than your yearly income, you can do things like make giant payments (or take giant losses) at the end of the taxable year to show a significantly low income, then recoup these losses at the start of next year.”
As an individual? No, you can’t.
You understand that business taxes and individual taxes are completely different things, right? There are a few structures (S corps are the most common) that pass through the profits of the business to the stakeholders as individual income, but the business still does the profit analysis within the business and passes out the profits to the stakeholders. You can manipulate the business numbers, but not indefinitely. Sooner or later a massaged loss will result in a gain in the future. But that would only impact the business, not the individual. Unless you break the law.
Everything you’ve presented so far is simple to understand and not complicated at all.
“ This is called a wash sale, and it is illegal under current (OMG COMPLEX!) rules issued by the IRS.)”
Yes, it’s illegal. However, it’s not hard to determine what is or isn’t income. And that is a very specific car. It is perfectly legal to balance stock losses and stock gains to end up with zero income. That’s another benefit that investors get: if they have a loss on one stock, they can use it to balance out a gain from another stock. Not only that, you can carry over a loss from a previous year to offset a gain the next year. But it while that’s another way that the investor class benefits from loopholes, it isn’t hard to know what is income.
None of what you have presented is difficult to determine. Why do you think it is?
I should pay no more or less than anyone else based on my income.
If you make $30K yr, and I make $90K, and this guy makes $1.2M - we should all have the exact same tax rate.
Let's say 5%.
$1500, $4500, $60,000. We're all putting in proportionally. If $1500 hits the $30K/yr guy harder than the $60K hits the millionaire - tough. At least we're all being treated the same.
And for all those earning $0/yr - fine. 5% of $0 is $0. But if you go more than one quarter without any income, you're barred from any social services of any kind (including public education for your kids and emergency health care) until you've found income for the next three quarters. You can look to private charity for assistance, but NOT the government. (Also, panhandling and prostitution are a jailable offense.)
That's fair. That's legit. That treats everyone the same and wipes out efforts to bilk the system. Heck, that even works for people doing things under the table. Also probably justify eliminating the capital gains tax while we're at it.
Huh? Why would you punish someone for making money off what may be their best ass-et? Making/keeping prostitution illegal is antithetical to libertarianism and freedom.
Hi Liz.
First, AT, I apologize for disappearing from our discussion. I had some family stuff I was dealing with and couldn’t get the time to reply. Sorry for vanishing suddenly.
“ If you make $30K yr, and I make $90K, and this guy makes $1.2M - we should all have the exact same tax rate.”
Agreed. That’s the idea of a flat tax and it’s as fair as it gets.
“ If $1500 hits the $30K/yr guy harder than the $60K hits the millionaire - tough. At least we're all being treated the same.”
This is the argument for everyone having a base level of untaxed income (25k per taxpayer seems to be a popular level. Not extravagant or even enough for most people, but if you want more you can work for it), so no means testing, then every other dollar of income would be taxed at the same flat rate (it seems like 20% or so works). I think it would be a good idea.
Ultimately, though, everyone having skin in the game is an important element and a flat tax could accomplish that in a fairer way than the present special-interest directed system.
“ And for all those earning $0/yr - fine. 5% of $0 is $0. But if you go more than one quarter without any income, you're barred from any social services of any kind (including public education for your kids and emergency health care) until you've found income for the next three quarters.”
This is a spending proposal, not a tax proposal. The qualifications for social services isn’t part of the tax code, nor should it be. That should be handled in the budgeting process or in the qualifications of the various programs. I’m pretty sure the laws that created the programs have legal requirements, as well.
"Also, panhandling and prostitution are a jailable offense.”
Why?
“ That's fair.”
That’s one person’s definition of fair, but it isn’t a tax proposal. It’s a spending proposal. Making social services transactional seems to defeat the purpose of a social safety net, but it’s a discussion for another day and another topic. A balanced budget article or a spending cut post would be a great place for it.
First, AT, I apologize for disappearing from our discussion. I had some family stuff I was dealing with and couldn’t get the time to reply. Sorry for vanishing suddenly.
No worries bro. All the best to you and yours. Internet's a hobby - a lark, even - not a responsibility/obligation.
I don't even remember what the heck we were talking about before. Abortion, I think?
Don't sweat it at all. 😀
This is a spending proposal, not a tax proposal.
I'm aware of that. My argument is that spending should be contingent on tax burdens. If you have no tax burden, you should NOT be the recipient of ANY spending.
That's redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Not OK.
Why?
They're the two categories most likely to earn significant amounts of unreported earnings, while simultaneously sucking off of the entitlement teat.
We jail them for the sole purpose of discouraging anyone who attempts to play both sides.
Making social services transactional seems to defeat the purpose of a social safety net
The social safety net is precisely that - a backup for people doing everything right, but then things went sideways and they had a rough couple.
The problem is that the "social safety net" is now more accurately described as a hammock - one in which far, FAR too many people are sleeping.
The goal here is twofold: get a job, and stop being a dependent. If you refuse to do the former, there's no reason whatsoever to allow you to become the latter.
“ No worries bro. All the best to you and yours.”
Thanks, man. It looks like things are back under control (or as under control as possible in life).
"I don't even remember what the heck we were talking about before.”
I was defending a rights-based social order. We were just getting into the meat of it, which is why abortion had become a discussion. I was loving how it was going and was going to start asking you about how your morals-based system would work and how it might be better (or worse) than a rights-based system. Dense stuff, but high-quality and thought-provoking.
“ That's redistribution of wealth, plain and simple. Not OK.”
Any tax system is redistribution of wealth. It’s taking money from citizens and using it for national priorities, not the priorities of each individual taxpayer. That will always end up redistributing wealth. There isn’t a government out there (not even a hypothetical system) that doesn’t redistribute wealth. It’s inevitable unless you have no government at all.
“ They're the two categories most likely to earn significant amounts of unreported earnings”
As is any other black market product. That’s an argument for legalizing prostitution, not jailing prostitutes. Once prostitution is legalized, that income is reported, like any other wage. And there are many other categories that generate a lot more unreported income (or tax-free/tax-reduced income, like capital gains) than prostitution and panhandling. And that’s leaving aside the idea that if someone wants to give a panhandler their money, the government has no business telling them they can’t. It’s their money. It’s a stupid choice, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
“ We jail them for the sole purpose of discouraging anyone who attempts to play both sides.”
That’s an argument for prosecuting any criminal activity. Why are prostitution and panhandling so bad and, for example, robbery/burglary not as important?
“ The social safety net is precisely that - a backup for people doing everything right, but then things went sideways and they had a rough couple.”
And? They wouldn’t be paying in if things went sideways. So they would be eligible when they didn’t need it, but ineligible when they did.
“ The problem is that the "social safety net" is now more accurately described as a hammock - one in which far, FAR too many people are sleeping.”
I would push back on the “far, FAR” part. And a flat tax would help in that, since things like refundable credits wouldn’t be a thing any more because there wouldn’t be special-interest deductions. There wouldn’t be deductions at all. Whatever you make (potentially over a baseline untaxed amount that is the same for all people, if a floor were adopted) would be taxed at the exact same rate, whether it is a dollar or a million dollars.
“ The goal here is twofold: get a job, and stop being a dependent. If you refuse to do the former, there's no reason whatsoever to allow you to become the latter.”
That would be one result of a flat tax.
There is a lot of moral judgement and broad assumptions in your post (as with our previous discussion) that should give you pause. A system based on a particular moral code (which is inherently arbitrary) is doomed to be abused. How do you think we ended up where we are now? It’s just based on a moral code that you don’t agree with. Substituting a new flawed code for the old flawed code would just mean the abuses would be different.
Member when reason argued that all income tax was essentially slavery to the federal goverment, and is immoral? Rev kuck remembers.
the lowest earners have effectively no tax liability at all.
I get weary of calling bullshit on this. The credits and exemptions that wipe out the tax liability of many middle- and lower-middle class families are mostly available only to taxpayers with dependents. The poorest working people without dependents, whose only "break" is the standard deduction, get slammed with taxes, often paying as much as a percentage of income as those with much higher incomes.
The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers have an effective tax rate of 3.3 percent
But they are NOT the same as the bottom 50% of EARNERS.
the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay an income tax...
...are NOT the same as the poorest 40%.
The lowest earners don't just have effectively no tax liability, they have negative tax liability. With the earned income credit the lowest earners can get refunds far greater than what they paid (if anything) in taxes over the year, even without dependents.
That is true only for a tiny number of workers with extremely low incomes in a narrow slot. For earners without dependents, the EITC is a pittance and cuts out at a very low income level.
The EIC ranges from $600 to $7430 depending on filing status and number of children. The lowest credit is available for single filers with no children and income up to $17,600 the highest for married filers with 3 or more children and income up to $63,400.
In 2024, 23M workers were eligible and received over $64B in refundable tax credits.
Is that a tiny number of recipients, the amount of the credit a pittance or an extremely low income level?
The number of EITC-eligible filers without dependents who receive enough from from the EITC to wipe out their tax burden is, yes, tiny, and their incomes are very low.
Yes, you are correct. I mistakenly read your comment as referring to the entire EIC recipient pool. However, I'm not a big fan of refundable tax credits and believe all income earners should have some skin in the game and contribute something, even a token amount.
Also it is noteworthy that it always depends on which taxes you look at. Even the poorest wage-earners pay the highly regressive FICA tax (Medicare, SS). Often analyses of taxes ignore these.
The poor cannot escape sales taxes or other regressive taxes. They may (do) pay less income taxes, but they still pay large shares of their income to the government in other taxes, including Sales, Car Registration, and FICA.
I am not arguing whether this is "Fair" or not, but just pointing out that as Vernon says above, these selective statistics can be misleading.
Also, people don't consider that one's income can be too LOW to qualify for EITC.
This discussion is, for the most part, pointless when you understand the purpose of the current federal income tax code is not so much to provide the government the funds to provide services to citizens but, rather, to buy votes in the next election.
Also, to drain off money from the economy to help control inflation and prevent wealth accumulation by the serfs.
I hear this often, but it doesn't make sense to me. If taxation is to pull money from the economy to curb inflation (MMT asserts this), wouldn't that only "work" if the government then burned the money? If the taxes collected are used for payments on the debt or to fund programs, that money is still in circulation. So how does taxation curb inflation, if the tax revenue is put back into the economy? The supply of dollars isn't reduced.
If taxes controlled inflation, then this wouldn't be true.
"In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected and promised to cut the top marginal tax rate. This he did, and the top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28% on incomes over just $29,750 - the lowest this rate had been since 1925.
The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, in part because the Federal Reserve increased interest rates (prime rate peaking at 20.5% in August 1981)"
Yes, I agree, interest rates affect inflation and prices. I was asking Vernon to explain how taxation would help control inflation, as he claimed it did. I can't see how that would be true, though, unless the monetary supply were reduced by burning the tax revenue (or otherwise destroying it and taking it out of circulation, and not just recirculated through payments for programs and such).
Sidenote: I realize Vernon may have been sarcastic with that comment and just mocking MMT proponents who claim taxation reduces inflation. Or he may have been sincere--I don't know. If he is sincere, I would love an answer to the question.
Wait, you are saying taxes control inflation. They do not. Government printing money than is needed causes inflation. You think if we had higher taxes inflation would go to 2%? We have history and can see that isn't true (Reagan years).
Wealth accumulation - I can't say I don't see something there. Taxes are a form of control. Government thinks they know what to do with your money better than you do. If you are rich, you aren't beholden to government. If you are poor, you want the government's help more. So I can see this part of your argument.
I support a flat tax and believe we should eliminate all loopholes. However, I disagree with the characterization that the wealthiest Americans pay 50 times more than the average person. For example, I make $50k a year and pay around 20% in total taxes (federal, state, and FICA). My dad owns a real estate business, primarily dealing with high-end properties for extremely wealthy clients, and I’m confident he’s not paying a significantly higher percentage of his income in taxes. While I can't be certain about his clients, I suspect they use similar accounting strategies.
I find it dismissive of lower-income struggles in the USA to frame the wealthy as victims because of the technical tax structure. I don’t think it’s necessary to use this narrative to advocate for a flat tax. There’s also the matter of sales taxes, which are regressive and hit lower-income individuals harder. A fair and simple tax system that most Americans could support would be one where income up to $30k is completely tax-free, with a flat tax rate on income above that. This structure would protect low-wage earners, addressing progressive concerns, while also being fair and transparent, which libertarians could support. It could be a solid middle ground.
While I get your point to an extent, the article addresses the federal income tax code which has nothing to do with FICA or state income tax burdens.
That said, in 2024 a single individual with $50,000 of wage income taking the current standard deduction of $14,600 (yielding $35,400 in taxable income) would incur a federal income tax liability of $4,016 which is an effective federal income tax rate of 8%. A married couple without dependents with $50,000 of wage income would have a federal income tax liability of $2,080 with an effective federal income tax rate of 4.2% (if they have a child/children they would likely have a zero or negative income tax liability due to refundable tax credits). Are those rates "fair"? I don't know.
No doubt the federal income tax code is a mess and needs to be greatly simplified if not scrapped and replaced in its entirety.
All good points. I included FICA because it's a regressive federal tax, and while the counterargument is that Social Security payouts are capped, I don’t like Social Security, so that tax bothers me.
I support reforming the tax code for simplicity, not necessarily fairness. Life is unfair from the start, and I don't mind a little unfairness in government policy if it helps correct some of the disadvantages people inherit. Maybe that’s not very libertarian of me, but I’m not overly ideological. At the end of the day, I mostly agree with the article’s take on the tax code with some small adjustments, but I think libertarians would be on board with it.
Not sure that I'd agree the FICA tax is regressive, especially the SS portion of it. As you mentioned, there is a cap on monthly benefits but there is also a minimum monthly benefit. I'm not sure what percentage of SS recipients receive the minimum benefit nor what percentage of those who do would have received less if there was not an established minimum.
SS is basically an annuity with benefits determined by actuarial formulas applied to individual/employer contributions and the recipient's age when benefits begin.
I believe the reference to FICA being regressive is based on the fact that there’s a cap, so high earners pay FICA on less of their income than middle- and low-earners. Although it’s only the SS portion that would be regressive, since there’s no cap on the Medicare portion of FICA.
Ok, maybe it’s regressive in a sense, but FICA taxes are different from income taxes. Income tax goes in to the general fund of the U.S. treasury used to fund the litany of federal expenditures, most of which provide no direct monetary or financial benefit to the individual taxpayer. FICA taxes return a direct monetary benefit (SS) to the tax payer and/or their survivors at some point and/or health insurance benefits (Medicare).
Agreed. They are separate systems, but removing the cap on SS would make it a flat tax, not regressive.
It would, but the cap on monthly benefit would have to be removed as well. FICA taxes fund two specific programs: OASDI and Medicare. Income taxes fund other federal expenditures.
Sorry, I meant that removing the SS cap (there already isn’t a cap on Medicare) would make FICA a flat tax. As mentioned above, that would have no impact on the income tax, which is a separate system.
Trump is a businessman so that is how he think's. Lifetime government servants can't think that way.
Paying taxes - fine. Figuring out what to pay - that is insane. It's crazy a whole industry (Big Tax gives donations) to just pay your taxes. Yes, you can do a 1040e but it's very limited.
What other countries have a bizarre tax code like ours? Don't they just get a card and told what to pay?
As for the 16th amendment - that won't be repealed, Democrats and some Republicans' want the money train. Nothing in it says you can't set the taxes at 1 dollar a year for everyone.
Stupid Libertarian that doesn't realize this would make taxes WORSE. As it is now Congress or a Biden says I want hmmmm 50 Billion for the Ukraine or 30 Billion for solar farms -- then the tax is assessed. Make it simpler and easier and MORE and MORE abuse is faciltated.
Does thel author think this money is being put to good use now?
"“The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the Department of Defense's (DOD) failure to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. In November 2022, DOD failed its fifth consecutive audit, unable to account for sixty-one percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets."
Does author know that the national debt (which will go up with a simplified tax, since the "savings" in personnel and administrative costs, will leave MORE to be wasted with no oversight.
HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE
We Must Address America’s Debilitating Federal Debt Spiral
https://budget.house.gov/press-release/via-the-daily-caller-we-must-address-americas-debilitating-federal-debt-spiral
An unjust tax sytstem keeps the beast of demonic waste at least in view.
Although I would prefer a national sales tax (except on food, medication and clothing), almost any suggestion for removing the notorious income tax would be welcomed, even a flat tax.
A flat tax would still be an income tax, just more fair and simpler. A sales tax is regressive and a bad idea.
Don't need a flat tax. Trump has it all fixed with endless tariffs that will launch us into the greatest prosperity ever seen. Okay, us peons will be starving, but the Musk and the other insiders get their prosperity, so all is well. Make America Grate Against!
We did this once before with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The only way to avoid the fate of the 1986 tax reform (which inevitably eroded over time) is to make it OPTIONAL, which is an idea dating back to Senator Russell Long and the Kennedy Administration and which Steve Forbes also advocated. Then it can truly be a progressive flat tax (one marginal rate above a zero tax bracket threshold) without ANY exemptions, deductions, exclusions, credits, etc. Since no loopholes would actually be repealed (that's the "optional" part), opposition from groups supporting these loopholes would be greatly muted.
“without deductions and credits”
lol like that would ever happen. No, it’ll be flat(ter) but with all the sane loopholes (as long as you’re rich) to get out of it.
Then it, by definition, wouldn’t be a flat tax. You seem to be missing what a flat tax is.
Whenever I see articles like this discussing federal tax burdens, almost without exception they fail to mention state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes. personal property taxes, and special district taxes which virtually all Americans pay directly and/or indirectly. Before we can have any meaningful discussion about federal flat tax rates we must include these other taxes as part of any burden discussion. Once we do we can then figure out objectively fair and reasonable flat tax rates. For example, what if we had a single income tax at the federal level, a federal sales tax, a federal property tax, and NO state or local tax of any kind, with federal collections flowing back to state and local governments based on population. Is this a fairer system than what we have now? Who knows because no one ever talks about or studies it.
Article summary:
Alleged 'Libertarian' rag shills for income tax, which is always immoral.
Consumption tax or land value tax are OK, LP hates tariffs but there's at least a reason for those, tolls are fine but deeply unpopular (congestion pricing that much more so), so good luck with that, and every other tax is full-out tyranny.
Income tax is a reality, unless you start by assuming the Constitutional Amendment that created it could ever be repealed. Which it never will.
And calling income tax immoral is like calling a cold front immoral. It’s ridiculous.
I’m constantly amazed (and baffled) by the laundry list of things that people call “immoral” and none of them agree with each other. It’s almost like morality is an arbitrary thing with almost no commonalities between systems. Oh, wait. That’s exactly what it is.
It would be interesting to know how high a flat tax % and single standard deduction and no other deduction would be to create a revenue neutral tax income. Here's why. Assume gross income equals the standard deduction. The tax would be zero. Assume gross income is 2x the standard deduction. The effective tax rate would be half the flat tax rate. The effective tax rate would increase automatically as income increases until the effective and flat tax rates are essentially the same. That could be perceived as a "fair" tax on the rich. Right?
That’s the idea. When it’s boiled down to basics, the idea is that everyone pays the same rate on each dollar, regardless of how much they make. If there were an income floor (the first $X of income are untaxed), that would also be universal.
It is fairer than a regressive tax or progressive tax, especially the way our present progressive tax system has been distorted to benefit the investor class. And I say that as someone who is getting those benefits.
As THomas Sowell has shown, it is illusory to think there are fixed populations of the rich and the poor.
"Sowell argues that “liberalism” has been worse than “slavery” on African Americans because it attempts to “fix” something that is “unfixable” by making the so-called oppressed people even more dependent through the creation of a welfare state. That so-called welfare state, in turn, causes economic retrogression in the Black community because, as a circular effect, the welfare state creates more poverty and crime by making people dependent. "