Flat Tax System Essays

Flat tax and progressive tax either can be considered fair or well put together for the American people since it has a rational approach towards taxation. However they do vary from each other when it comes to its treatment of the wealthy people, and each of this system is biased and discriminatory, but at least one good aspect of progressive tax is that people of lower income are still paying low and under flat tax they will end up paying same as a wealthy individual who is well. Only because the name of a policy sounds progressive does not mean its action has to be. Furthermore, the current progressive tax policy is only a few steps away from becoming the flat tax and there is no difference among these two. So if the flat tax is being implemented in the United States it will have validity to do more harm to the majority of the Americans then giving them any

One popular method of tax reform that some of the experts in this field think is worth considering is implementing a flat tax also known as a consumption tax. J. D. Foster says that “any tax with a single tax rate could be considered a flat tax.” An article from the website Tax Policy Center defines consumption as being “income less savings” (Gale). The major difference between an income tax and a consumption tax is the way savings are taxed. With an income tax all income is taxed when it is earned and again when interest is earned on any savings. Critics of an income tax say that this is double taxation and

First off, there are many people who do not even know what a flat tax is. By definition, a flat tax is described as, “a very precisely defined and coherent tax structure: a combination of a cash-flow tax on business income and a tax on workers’ income, both levied at the same, single rate” (Keen 4). Now, this just means that every person and every business, no matter the income, would be taxed at the same rate. Realistically speaking, when people talk about taxes, it is a matter of who wins and who loses. If we decided to adopt a flat tax system, people of lower income families would be suffering, “Under the flat tax, low-income households would lose because they now pay no income tax and are eligible for a refundable EITC of up to $3,370” (Gale 155). With this being said, the families of higher income would actually be thriving of a system

Americans that are in favor of increasing the tax rate believe that it will not reduce entrepreneurs or celebrities desire to be productive (Walsh).

The federal tax code has a level of complexity so great, that reforming it should be the one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Instead, proposal after proposal calling for reform die in Congress. And there have been a lot of proposals. Arlen Specter (D-PA) put some form of a flat tax/tax reform proposal into Congress’s hands every year from 1995-2010. This is because, for the most part, the fight for reform always comes down to a two sided debate. One side wants to keep the current complex structure and the other sees no other alternative than blowing this current structure up and moving to a flat rate system. All of this brings me to the arguments for/against the flat rate tax system.

Many people think we should. For instance, the New York Times author Patricia Cohen argues in her article, “What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts”, that raising taxes on the top percent of Americans would bring in much more revenue to the government and cause little to no damage on the economy (Cohen par. 18). Furthermore, she explains that if we increase the tax rate to 40% in the top 0.1% of households, which have an average income of $9.4 million, then that would give around $55 billion in extra revenue the first year alone (Cohen par. 12). This is a great amount of revenue that could pay for a wide variety of government programs such as economic stimulus packages.

Promote Economic Growth- Many advocates of flat taxes argue it will promote economic growth and spur job creation. One argument is that many working Americans would work harder to increase their incomes without fear of entering higher tax brackets.

There are three different types of tax systems presented in this article: Progressive income tax, Flat tax, and the Fair Tax. The progressive tax system is what we have in the US and is common in countries across the world. It bases the percentage of income tax you should pay by the amount of income you receive. Basically, if you have a large income then the rate of tax you will pay is larger and, furthermore, if you have a low income you will have a lower rate to pay. Many conservatives dislike this system because it forces the top percentage of taxpayers to pay a majority of the tax revenue. “According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of taxpayers have consistently paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90% since 2003…” It treats people differently and it allows for

The IRS argues against the flat income tax since it is regressive with all taxpayers paying the same tax rate. While it is true that the current federal income tax system is progressive, the primary argument for a flat or flatter tax is to simplify the tax system. A flat or flatter federal income tax system with a limited number of exclusions and deductions could accomplish the same goals in a much more expedient way.

The flat tax replaces the current income tax code, with its maze of exemptions, loopholes, and targeted breaks, with a system so simple Americans could file their taxes on a postcard-size form.

"A revolutionary change in our tax system is fundamental to re-energizing the American economy and restoring the American dream" (Moore 1). Currently, there are two major plans being considered to try and fix the tax system in the United States. These two plans are the Flat Tax and the National Retail Sales Tax. "Both the Flat Tax and a National Sales Tax would replace today's discriminatory tax structure with a single low rate. Either plan would promote the kind of capital formation that America needs to boost workers' incomes and raise long-term economic growth" (Mitchell 1). This means that the flat tax would take away the savings from the government and pass them on to the citizens and businesses. By doing this, there would be a rise in long-term economic growth.

The supporters of the Flat Tax system are quick to point out this system's attributes but not as quickly as the criticisms by those who oppose it. The filing of taxes each year would be much easier because there would be one set rate to pay. This type of system also discourages, and makes it almost impossible, to find and use any existing schemes that are present to avoid paying taxes. However, because there is a set rate at which everyone needs to pay, this system is quite unfair. Those who earn and have a lot of money should not pay the same amount as someone who has only a fraction of their wealth. The wealthier you are, the more you should pay because you can afford it. If there is a set tax rate it would be too high to some people and pocket change to others. A system like this also takes away many, if not all tax deductions. An event like this would cause irreparable injury to the middle class, who often times rely heavily on money they will get back from tax deductions.

Should the flat tax rate system be implemented? No, the flat tax rate system should not be implemented. In this paper, the pro arguments will be presented, which will affirm the thesis. Then the con arguments will be presented. A rebuttal will then follow, and finally, the author’s conclusion will be offered.

Policy makers have introduced a solution to the staggering proportion of taxes that Americans spend. The flat tax, based on an idea developed by Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka of Stanford University to create a fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system (Mitchell 1, 11). There are four basic criteria that make up a flat tax. First is a single low rate on taxable income, the baseline for taxable income would be raised to a certain amount dictated by a personal exemption. Second is simplicity, all Americans would fill out the same postcard-sized form to pay their taxes. Third is the reduction or elimination of deductions, credits, and exemptions, depending

Universalism seeks to create a system in which all participants would be willing to see everyone else follow. Furthermore, it seeks to never use humanity as ends but rather as a means. Therefore, wealth redistribution typically would not align with this theory because not all taxpayers agree to such terms. This is the main argument against progressive tax systems from the viewpoint of Universalism. On the other hand, looking at a flat tax system, neither system fully equates to the universal point of view. The argument against a flat tax system is fundamentally the same as that of a progressive system. In that, since a flat tax system also places an unequal burden on taxpayers, not all taxpayers are going to agree to those terms either. Therefore, since we have a difference in opinion, it is necessary to determine which is the lesser of the two evils. As such a typical Universalist would view a progressive tax system as such. However, the only problem with this is that progressive systems, more than flat tax systems, treats humanity as means, not the ends. Even still, most Universalists accept the fact that