So you think the benefits of a flat tax far outweigh the fact that there can’t be one tax rate for everybody which actually maintains government funding? Or, like so many flat-taxers, you just kind of gloss over that?

Plus which, do you think nobody would be filing for exemptions such as education, medical or student loan payments, not to mention mortgages, inheritances, etc? Come on, just because everybody would start off knowing their tax rate is 9% or whatever doesn’t mean people won’t have the same problems they do now. By far the largest part of your taxes now is figuring out what your actual taxable income is. Looking at the table to find out your percent tax rate is the very last step! So wow, people wouldn’t have to take that extra minute to look at the chart in the back of the book. Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to change things as much as you think.

As far as the number of people filing taxes, hey, those rich people aren’t just forgetting to do their taxes, alright? Flat tax or fair tax or whatever, they’re going to avoid paying it. It’s not like they avoid it now because the burden is too heavy; they avoid it because they don’t feel like they owe the government anything!

So, are you saying most stupid arguments in favor of flat tax are borne out of the arrogance and self-satisfaction the rich have because they were lucky enough to be born with money? Well then, as long as we know where we stand.

1. Less time spent with Tax Clerks.
2. Ease of calculation and filing for both citizend and government.
3. Increased number of people filing taxes.

Most of the clever arguments against flat tax and against rich people are borne out of jealousy towards the rich people, and the fact that poor people far out-number the rich.

* “Soak the rich” is one approach, but it never happens regardless of whether the liberals or conservatives hold political power. The wealthy have the money to game the system.
* “Tax the corporations” is another approach, but corporate taxes are built into the cost of products or services, so consumers are actually paying those taxes, too. It’s a hidden sales tax.

Second, and much more importantly to a flat tax, I’ve never seen any tax idea , flat tax included, that didn’t have a substantial exemption on the first x amount of income. By ignoring that, you basically codify your result into your numbers.

Looking at a simplified Steve Forbes flat tax, let’s say that we only have 1 exemption and it’s 15000. Plugging that into your numbers, I think you’ll find that Joe pays a 9.0625% rate while George pays a 9.7938% rate. Just for fun, I ran a Bill Gates who makes $500 an hour and his tax rate would have been 9.9941%. As you make more money, you would asymptotically approach the actual rate because the exemption would be a smaller number in relation to your income.

No tax would ever be so regressively set up as yours. Perhaps a pure libertarian might envision a flat tax such as yours but I’m guessing that most of the rest of us would expect those who are truly misfortunate to not pay taxes on a sizable portion of their income.

Of course, none of this speaks to the core issue of whether it makes sense to desire a tax rate related to disposable income. Maybe that can be another post.

Scotch

A plurality of Americans believe lower-income people pay too much in taxes, 50% believe middle-income people pay a fair share, but most interestingly, 70% believe that upper-income people and corporations pay too little! I guess that vast majority of Americans like to engage in class warfare, eh Republicans?