How can a tax system be both flat and progressive? Contradiction. We'd probably need a Constitutional Amendment... already had a law mandating "no deficit spending", but Gummint chucked it into the trash when they found out it was "no fun"...
How do you go about valuing 10 acres of: - Undeveloped, Louisiana swampland. - corn field, fallow - corn field, active - rural single-family homes - suburban single-family homes - high-density, low-income city housing - low-density, high-income city housing - occupied by an auto assembly plant - downtown Manhattan business district I bet that you'll end up with a development tax.
It's flat because there are no deductions or categorization of income. It's progressive because the rate is indexed to the distribution of income. Tax deductions create problems. There's incentives for special interests to game the system. It also increases overhead due to the need to seek out tax cheats. I also see nothing wrong with a progressive structure based on wealth distribution. If society gives you the opportunity to succeed you should give back a proportional fair share that's over and above the cost of living. Jefferson's greatest lament with the Constitution was that he couldn't get an amendment added to prohibit government borrowing...
but could anyone really take mccain's 'redistribution' criticism of obama seriously? WTF were Amnesty & bailouts? I didnt vote for either
No, that's why until the Republicans stop running Democrat-lite candidates, they will continue to get their asses kicked.
Anyone who thinks a percentage flat tax is fair hasn't taken into account that there are three dimensions to compensation. The first is the socioeconomic ladder. It's disproportionately harder to move up when you're farther down at the start. The second is income growth opportunity. Blue collar laborers will see lower net growth in income over their career than a white collar worker will. The third is lifetime output. Higher-compensated professions result in less annual hours worked and earlier retirement. When you factor all three of those dimensions in a flat percentage tax becomes regressive for lower wage earners. Someone who has to pick vegetables by day and clean floors by night for practically their entire life pays more tax as a percentage of their lifetime income then someone who enters the workforce in their 20's and is able to retire in their mid-50's, if not earlier.
In America, we have the choice to not achieve... to fail even. The wealthy generally don't get that way simply because society bestowed a favor upon them. They got that way because of their effort, sacrifice and ability (or daddy did... grandpa, somebody in the family) Even with a truly flat tax, the wealthy would still pay the bulk of the load like they do now. However to pay PROPORTIONATELY more is not only discriminatory, it's unfair. (In America there are laws against discrimination of many kinds... but not against "income discrimination"). I don't care if the 1st $50,000 of income is completely tax free... just so the rules apply equally to all.
This isn't about those who've squandered the opportunity to get ahead, they deserve what they don't get out of life. No, this is about treating wage earners "equally" when they never got an equal opportunity at success Take the inner city kid who gets stellar grades in a public high school but his family can only afford community college. Is he a failure because he'll never make as much as some lazy, privileged snot who skated through private school and gets into Princeton because dad's an alum with money? Is it fair to tax them the same exact rate when one retires 10 years earlier than the one who busted his ass 10 times more to get where he got? I think you need to re-examine your idea of success and failure...
The fact is one already has an unequally distributed consumption tax in the US.....(unfair) ie a tube of toothpaste..... Three people walk into the drug store....and based on one's tax rate....has to pay a true different price.... Toothpaste 50 cents Person A.....0 tax rate ....pays 1x 50 cents Person B....20% tax rate...pays 62 cents.... Person C...40% tax rate....pays 90 cents...... A Car $30,000 Person A..... $30,000 Person B....$37,200 Person C...$54,000 This is representative of the current system....which is expected to be even more skewed with Nobamanomics..... So some people get to pay $30,000...and some people get to pay $54,000 for the very same car...... Look....this is a failed system....particularly when special interest controls the tax take.....and not the people.... So this is not rocket science..... This is about having a true democracy....whereby when one walks into a store people pay the same thing for what they buy.... The bottomline idea is for people to make enough for the basics....and then discretionary income would be dependent on what the person actually does.... This would be the target of a fair and robust system.....