The Flat Tax Essay

While most taxpayers agree that tax reform is necessary for our country the problem they encounter is the difficulty they experience when trying to understand all the political terms used when discussing tax reform. This paper is an attempt to help the taxpayers of our country to better understand the political terminology and gain knowledge about some of the proposals that have been explored.

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.

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.

A flat tax system in the United States by definition refers to taxing household incomes at the same rate regardless of income levels. Advocates of a flat tax system argue that it will simplify U.S. tax codes and eliminate other taxes. Opponents of a flat tax system argue that it only benefits wealthy individuals and would eliminate the IRS causing wide-spread unemployment. Here are some of the pros and cons of a flat tax system.

The Armey-Shelby flat tax proposal will scraps the entire income tax code and replaces it with a flat-rate income tax that treats all Americans the same. This plan would simplify the tax code, promote economic opportunity, and restore fairness and integrity to the tax system. The flat rate would be phased-in over a three-year period, with a 19 percent rate for the first two years and a 17 percent rate for subsequent years.

"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.

Furthermore, according to the Carroll, The Internal Revenue Service is aware that business and individual taxpayers spend more than 6 billion hours per year to comply with the tax system. A flat tax would use two forms with simple instructions, one form for business and capital income and another for labor income. There is a whole industry created just to comply with current tax codes of tax lawyers, tax accountants, tax planners, tax filers, tax collectors and tax scholars. A flat tax would be based on two forms, the business income, and wages income. There would be no special interest loopholes, tax shelters and compensation for workers not considered “Wages” that enable the current biased and discriminatory system to operate. As an example, income that is not paid in wages or directly reinvested into the business through maintenance of equipment and facilities, expansion of productivity through new equipment and facilities would be taxed at nineteen percent. The same that wages would be taxed at nineteen percent, no confusing deductions, credits or exemptions, just a flat tax.

The middle class ($50,000-$99,999) paid 14.9 percent of individual taxes, while the poor class paid 0.1% of individual taxes. The 1%, rich class, paid more than the middle class and poor class combined, yet they aren’t paying their share in the eyes of so many. In 2011 the 1 percent, people who were making $100,000 and higher paid 23.8 % of the total tax liability and 9.1% in 2000. According to the National Tax Payer’s Union, in the tax year of 2014 the top 1% ($465,626 AGI) paid 39.48% of taxes, while the top 50 % -25% ($38,173-$77,713 AGI) paid 10.47%, and the bottom 50%(<$36,841 AGI) still paid the least with paying only 2.78% of

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

The rich should have to pay more taxes. They make more money so they should have to give more, the poor makes less so they should have to give less. Everybody should have to pay taxes, even the poor people who don’t make that much money. Each taxpayer should have to give a certain percentage of their yearly income. For example, if a taxpayer makes $60k or below they should have to give five percent and if they make $61k-$99k then they should give ten percent. For each income range, the percentage should increase five percent. All of the classes work hard for their money. It’s just that the poor weren’t given the same opportunities as the rich. The rich have a right to be mad that they are paying more in taxes than the lower class, but America

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.