Opposition to the Fair Tax

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

The Fair Tax is not a tax break. It ensures revenue neutrality meaning that the FairTax will give the government the same amount of revenue as the income tax system while spurring economic growth. The critics of the FairTax say that the rate should be at least 10% higher in order for the government to have revenue neutrality. With the substantially higher sales tax rate people may evade this tax and just buy the necessities. A vast majority of poor people are all in debt because they spend even when they don’t have money, when people have more money they save anyway. This fact leads critics to believe that since the poor and middle class spend the most they will be bear the burden of the substantially higher sales tax. FairTax answers this criticism by saying that the government will fully reimburse taxes for those whose income is below poverty level. The “prebate” discussed earlier and the elimination of FICA taxes

Throughout the entire existence of any form of government, there has always been taxes. Most of the time (if not all), people hate taxes. With this being said, the United States has adopted a progressive tax since its very existence. We believe that if our nation is placed under a flat tax system, our economy will operate more effectively. If we incorporate a flat tax system we will be able to ensure fairness among all citizens, eliminate tax loopholes, and allow opportunities for business expansion. With this being said, we will be examining the strengths and weaknesses about the flat tax system and how it has been used into practice.

In the United States, the top one percent received about 20 percent of the overall income for 2016. This creates an uneven distribution of income causing Americans to argue about whether or not the wealthy should pay more in federal income taxes. One side of the argument is that the wealthy make a huge portion of the nation’s income; therefore, they should have higher tax rates. The other side argues that wealthy Americans already pay their fair share of taxes by paying nearly 40 percent and should not be forced to pay more. These arguments both use compelling evidence to make their claims; however, a solution could be reached by increasing the tax rate of the top one percent by only 10 to 20 percent.

The arguments regarding federal progressive income tax has been represented to us through the United States Supreme Court, on the floors of congress, and in media. The revenue from taxes reached the objective of financing wars from the Civil War through World War II. At the same time deteriorating the economy with fewer dollars that could be used on imports, exports, and services (Henchman). Today, the United States deficit is $18,800,241,350,538.12 this is a grand total of 58,405.32 owed by every man, woman, and child (Brown). The legal illusion is presenting the question, is income tax legal? There are Americans today who believe income tax is not legal and stand by their beliefs in a movement that has cost many individuals considerably. I am interviewing such a person, his name is Bobby Ray and the history he presented to me was interesting, and has left me with more questions than answers.

People do not enjoy talking about taxes because they are too political, confusing, and depressing. It is no secret that the American tax code is a mess and something many economists describe as too broken to fix. Despite this, politicians have never stopped from trying to “fix” the code, yet they have had very little success. The U.S. Government’s tax code currently comprises “more than 67,000 pages of complexities” (Boortz, Linder, & Woodall 14). The Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) was founded in 1995 with one goal: create the simplest and best tax reform plan that would work in the modern market and economy. The AFFT’s best solution was a bill which they promptly called the FairTax.

The current tax code for the United States is almost 74,000 pages long. Or to put that into a different light: About 116 copies of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. It is small wonder that a few of the announced candidates for President of the United States, have again begun to kick the tires on the topic of a Flat Tax. But is a flat tax actually a solution to our country’s growing tax complexity? What are the potential economic effects of a flat tax (both positive and negative)? Finally, is a flat tax even a viable solution? In short, will it work? As a concept, a flat tax is spectacular. Simplicity at its finest. As a fiscal policy, I believe that same simplicity must be examined and inspected closely.

The tax policy in the United States is very confusing. When the tax policy was originally written in 1913 it was four hundred pages. Now, over the past ninety one years, that tax policy has evolved to over 72,000 pages. Since the tax code has become so lengthy and nearly impossible to understand, the topic of tax reform has been in the minds of many. Although, most barely think about tax reform until tax season. It is a controversial subject due to the impact a change in tax code would have on the American people. The two most popular and widely known stakeholders in this debate are the two major political parties in the United States, the Democrats and the Republicans. The two parties share absolutely no common ground on the subject of

The tax system in the United States has changed throughout the years, with many attempts to make it "fair" or "equal" while at the same time generating enough income for the United States government to thrive. It is a complex issue, and a controversial one at that. While it may not be possible for our tax system to ever be fair, it is important to make sure it doesn 't put more financial stress and pressure on one group than on another.

The governments in any country use various taxation systems to raise funds to fund its national projects. The most common tax system is the income tax whereby the government raises funds from individual’s earnings. However, in the past few years, there has been heated debate about the adverse effects of progressive income tax on productivity and a proposal to replace it with national sales tax (Hodge, 2017). The national sales tax also known as the fair tax is intended to replace the current income tax and the idea is to enable the government to generate income from consumptions as opposed to earnings. This document examines the positives and negatives of the proposed national sales tax on the U.S. economy. The suggestion to impose a tax on consumption rather than consumption aims at encouraging savings and investments to improve productivity and promote economic growth. It is expected to promote fairness in the taxation because individuals will pay according to what they consume and not what they earn.

Our current income tax system today is very complex, unfair, inhibits saving, investment and job creation, imposes a heavy burden on families, and weakens the integrity of the democratic process. It can't be fixed and must be replaced. The U.S. income tax code is a long and complex system. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. The administrative costs of the tax system far exceed those borne directly by the IRS. Each year Americans devote 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van produced in the U.S.

Currently, the United States has a federal income tax that is very difficult to understand, to comply with,

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.

The loudest clamor against the flat tax would come from homeowners, Realtors, and builders, who would be hammered as the flat tax does away with deductions for mortgage interest payments and local property taxes. If not negotiated with skill, this issue could be the flat tax movement’s Achilles’ heel. An analysis by the economic consulting firm DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that

The individual income tax is complicated, and it violates transparency standards through created loopholes (or tax preferences) which allow some to pay less than their fair share of taxes (Mikesell, 2011). In 2005, more than 70 percent of individuals filing taxes had tax preparers complete their returns because of confusing rules and regulations that could penalize taxpayers for qualifying for certain legal tax preferences (Mikesell, 2011). This transparency problem exists because citizens are really unaware of how to determine their tax liability except at the end of the year. Income taxes are collected annually through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and there are constant complaints about the IRS not willing to assist taxpayers