Why don't we have a flat tax system for personal income taxes?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: gotsmack

A deduction isn't going to stop someone who wants to own.

Personally I see where you're comming from, and ideally would agree...you've got to pay to play...and if you can't come up with 20% down and have to use deductions to subsidize your lifestyle then you're living beyond your means...

But to be fair, this would turn alot of people away from home ownership, as many count on said itemized deductions...however with population growing especially in urban areas this might not be a bad thing.

However the flat tax or flatter tax is a pipe dream...here is a good but dated article from time on why a flat tax system wouldn't "work" in the US...

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,984012,00.html
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
Simple answer to OP's question is marginal value of money, or more generally marginal utility.
 

Proprioceptive

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2006
1,630
10
81
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think a consumption tax is the preferred alternative...
The problem with consumption taxes is that they are regressive when it comes to taxing personal income. The poor spend a much larger proportion of their income than the rich. Someone making the minimum wage will likely spend every penny they earn; someone making hundreds of millions will only spend a tiny fraction of that amount. This holds true at more reasonable incomes, most people earning $50k a year spend a much larger percentage of their income than most people earning $500k a year.

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.

How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

Compliments FairTax.org

 
Dec 10, 2005
29,358
14,816
136
Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think a consumption tax is the preferred alternative...
The problem with consumption taxes is that they are regressive when it comes to taxing personal income. The poor spend a much larger proportion of their income than the rich. Someone making the minimum wage will likely spend every penny they earn; someone making hundreds of millions will only spend a tiny fraction of that amount. This holds true at more reasonable incomes, most people earning $50k a year spend a much larger percentage of their income than most people earning $500k a year.

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: ......

Compliments FairTax.org

What an objective source.

The FairTax is the creation of a think thank sponsored by rich people with the goal to reduce taxes on the very rich by shifting the burden to the lower classes.

Even with the "pre-bate" stuff, it still does not take in the marginal utility of money. The less money people make per year, the more they are going to end up spending to cover basic needs and the limited luxury items they might be able to afford.
 

Proprioceptive

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2006
1,630
10
81
I live amongst a LOT of "poor" people and those below the poverty line. The vast majority of them do spend a higher relative percentage of their income, but typically for foolish reasons. I make VERY little myself now, yet I spend very little of what I do earn. I've adjusted my expenditures to my means... and I'm married with two children. I think that the FariTax is the responsible alternative, and I also think that it will make the liberal spenders more fiscally conservative. The FairTax is double edged, providing no significant increase in tax burden while encouraging conservative spending habits.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,358
14,816
136
Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
I live amongst a LOT of "poor" people and those below the poverty line. The vast majority of them do spend a higher relative percentage of their income, but typically for foolish reasons. I make VERY little myself now, yet I spend very little of what I do earn. I've adjusted my expenditures to my means... and I'm married with two children. I think that the FariTax is the responsible alternative, and I also think that it will make the liberal spenders more fiscally conservative. The FairTax is double edged, providing no significant increase in tax burden while encouraging conservative spending habits.

Is that what you want? To kill spending in a consumer driven economy?

You might call their spending foolish, but who are you to judge? Maybe their lives are shitty enough as it is living in poverty, that they spring a little bit for a luxury item or two just to make their lives a little bit better.
 

Proprioceptive

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2006
1,630
10
81
If spending is what they need to do to be happy... well... I guess their lives will always be "shitty".

I do, however, agree with you that the FairTax would cut a bit off the top of our conumer-driven economy label, but it's that transition that I believe will help this country prosper and avoid these ridiculous bailouts.

I suppose when arguing taxes, you'll always hit the ideological arguments. Can't be avoided, I'm afraid.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
I live amongst a LOT of "poor" people and those below the poverty line. The vast majority of them do spend a higher relative percentage of their income, but typically for foolish reasons. I make VERY little myself now, yet I spend very little of what I do earn. I've adjusted my expenditures to my means... and I'm married with two children. I think that the FariTax is the responsible alternative, and I also think that it will make the liberal spenders more fiscally conservative. The FairTax is double edged, providing no significant increase in tax burden while encouraging conservative spending habits.

Is that what you want? To kill spending in a consumer driven economy?

You might call their spending foolish, but who are you to judge? Maybe their lives are shitty enough as it is living in poverty, that they spring a little bit for a luxury item or two just to make their lives a little bit better.

Consumerism will be the death of the US...
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Consumerism will be the death of the US...

Yes I agree, if you are really that poor then you shouldn't be entertaining any luxury purchases.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
If spending is what they need to do to be happy... well... I guess their lives will always be "shitty".

I do, however, agree with you that the FairTax would cut a bit off the top of our conumer-driven economy label, but it's that transition that I believe will help this country prosper and avoid these ridiculous bailouts.

I suppose when arguing taxes, you'll always hit the ideological arguments. Can't be avoided, I'm afraid.

Other than a catchy name, how is FairTax any better (or more fair) than the current income tax system? How would it help avoid ridiculous bailouts? It's certainly a DIFFERENT approach, but I haven't seen an argument that it's BETTER.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
If spending is what they need to do to be happy... well... I guess their lives will always be "shitty".

I do, however, agree with you that the FairTax would cut a bit off the top of our conumer-driven economy label, but it's that transition that I believe will help this country prosper and avoid these ridiculous bailouts.

I suppose when arguing taxes, you'll always hit the ideological arguments. Can't be avoided, I'm afraid.

Other than a catchy name, how is FairTax any better (or more fair) than the current income tax system? How would it help avoid ridiculous bailouts? It's certainly a DIFFERENT approach, but I haven't seen an argument that it's BETTER.

The theory is you tax the consumers in our economy, not the producers. I agree it is a different approach. I think the premise of taxing consumers and not producers has some merit. It also gets rid of ridiculously complicated income tax returns. You pay at the register vs every pay check then fill out a form to make sure you paid enough.

My biggest fear is it ends up being regressive. They seem to take care of some of that with the pre-bates. With the size and scope of our govt it would have to be shown to be revenue neutral before it could get any serious considerations.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
The theory is you tax the consumers in our economy, not the producers. I agree it is a different approach. I think the premise of taxing consumers and not producers has some merit. It also gets rid of ridiculously complicated income tax returns. You pay at the register vs every pay check then fill out a form to make sure you paid enough.

My biggest fear is it ends up being regressive. They seem to take care of some of that with the pre-bates. With the size and scope of our govt it would have to be shown to be revenue neutral before it could get any serious considerations.
The problem that pre-bates fails to address is that as consumers multimillionaires spend a minuscule fraction of their income. The poor spend a greater proportion of their income when compared to the wealthy. This results in the poor paying a disproportionately larger share of their income as taxes.

Someone making $15 million a year can live extremely well spending $1.5 million a year.
Someone making $150k a year will find it difficult to live spending $15k a year.
Someone making $15k a year will find it next to impossible to live on $1.5k a year.

So that multimillionaire might be taxed on 25% of their income, that middle class family will probably be taxed on 75% of their income, and that minimum wage earner will be taxed on 100% of their income. How is a consumption tax fairer?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,649
33,240
136
The reason we won't have it every interest group that get deductions would bitch, moan and start lobbying (throw money) at congress.

If the exemption is 25-30K, I would be for it.
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
Originally posted by: jackace
Simple answer to OP's question is marginal value of money, or more generally marginal utility.

I don't understand what you are saying.

The first $15k +extra for dependents would be tax free. What does that have to do with marginal value of money?
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
Originally posted by: HomerJS
The reason we won't have it every interest group that get deductions would bitch, moan and start lobbying (throw money) at congress.

If the exemption is 25-30K, I would be for it.

Good point. Lobbyists are a big part of what is wrong with current politics.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Stiganator
For future reference.

If you're single

0-30,000 poor
30-90k middle
90k+ rich

Family of 4
0-50,000/year poor
50k-120k/year middle
120k + /year rich

This is based on Midwest standard of living. Change by a factor of 1.5-2 if you live in a major city. Approximately 90-95% make under the rich mark.

you've got to be kidding.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,358
14,816
136
Originally posted by: gotsmack
Originally posted by: jackace
Simple answer to OP's question is marginal value of money, or more generally marginal utility.

I don't understand what you are saying.

The first $15k +extra for dependents would be tax free. What does that have to do with marginal value of money?

Say you have some kind of deficiency, like scurvy. A few lemons would be very useful to you if you have 1 or none. But if you already had a whole basket of lemons, a few extra won't make a difference because of decreasing marginal returns. The same is true with money. When you don't have a lot of money, you are limited with what you can buy, so you must spend more as a percentage on basic living things. When you're well off, that percentage spent on basic needs is much lower because you have so much more money.

My analogy is kind of shitty, I know. I'm not an econ major.
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: gotsmack

A deduction isn't going to stop someone who wants to own.

Personally I see where you're comming from, and ideally would agree...you've got to pay to play...and if you can't come up with 20% down and have to use deductions to subsidize your lifestyle then you're living beyond your means...

But to be fair, this would turn alot of people away from home ownership, as many count on said itemized deductions...however with population growing especially in urban areas this might not be a bad thing.

However the flat tax or flatter tax is a pipe dream...here is a good but dated article from time on why a flat tax system wouldn't "work" in the US...

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.../0,9171,984012,00.html

Great article. It explains how the top 1% actually pay a 27% tax rate. However under my proposed Flat Tax plan, inheritance is also taxed so those huge fortunes that get created and create powerful families would get hit with a 15% tax every time money gets passed on to a new generation.

I supposes a family could get around it by creating some soft of foundation that pays for all of their needs while keeping the money out of their personal returns, but every time that foundation pays some sort of benefit like a health insurance benefit or rent (dunno if foundations really pay this, I'm just making up examples) the person receiving it would be responsible for the tax.

 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Personal and corporate income taxes are a complete joke, they can easily be abolished with a corresponding reduction in government spending.

-Barely enforceable. Since the IRS can't audit everyone, they turn to intimidation tactics to deter evasion. Lots of good people are put through hell, others get away without paying.
-Requires people to fill out confusing paperwork every year.
-Requires a government collection agency (IRS) that ironically requires more taxes by existing.
-Disincentivizes production, that horse that pulls the cart of consumption
-Begets anti-competitive tax credits for some companies and not others
-Begets infighting by penalizing people based on income, sexual orientation (gays get no marriage tax benefits)
-Could be considered double taxation with inflationary currency as government considers nominal dollar gains made on inflation to be taxable revenue despite no gains in value realized.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,358
14,816
136
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Personal and corporate income taxes are a complete joke, they can easily be abolished with a corresponding reduction in government spending.

-Barely enforceable. Since the IRS can't audit everyone, they turn to intimidation tactics to deter evasion. Lots of good people are put through hell, others get away without paying.
-Requires people to fill out confusing paperwork every year.
-Requires a government collection agency (IRS) that ironically requires more taxes by existing.
-Disincentivizes production, that horse that pulls the cart of consumption
-Begets anti-competitive tax credits for some companies and not others
-Begets infighting by penalizing people based on income, sexual orientation (gays get no marriage tax benefits)
-Could be considered double taxation with inflationary currency as government considers nominal dollar gains made on inflation to be taxable revenue despite no gains in value realized.

So what kind of taxes should there be? People want services; they have to be paid for somehow. Money does not grow on trees.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
Personal and corporate income taxes are a complete joke, they can easily be abolished with a corresponding reduction in government spending.

Key word: can. The simple reason why supply side economics fail to work is that government spending has gone in only one direction: UP. And no matter what tax you enact, flat, sales, etc. there's always someone who loses. changes will not necessarily solve the problem (see the AMT which hasn't been indexed for inflation and now ensnares middle class as well as the affluent it was originally designed to target).

-Barely enforceable. Since the IRS can't audit everyone, they turn to intimidation tactics to deter evasion. Lots of good people are put through hell, others get away without paying.
In David Cay Johnston's book, Perfectly Legal, he argues that the government has cracked down harder on low-income families/individuals due to pressure from more well-off targets.

Disincentivizes production, that horse that pulls the cart of consumption
Wasn't there a report within the last month or two which reported that the US still leads in global productivity? And despite American complaints of taxes, they're nowhere NEAR Europe, ie. Britain.

Could be considered double taxation with inflationary currency as government considers nominal dollar gains made on inflation to be taxable revenue despite no gains in value realized.
Not sure what you're talking about; if you're referring to TIPS as investment, simple solution is to put it in a tax-free account ie IRA account.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,585
126
Originally posted by: gotsmack
What are the arguments against a flat tax?

If we had a flat tax system, for personal income tax (leave the business system alone) and got rid of all loopholes then we might be collecting even more tax revenue and have everyone pay what is perceived as mare fair.

We could do something like first $15k tax free for each working adult and $5k for each dependent up to 5. Capital gains would be taxed at the normal tax rate but long term capitol gains would have a deduction sheet decided by CPI going up to 30 years back and losses can be carried forward as long as you keep the the records.

Everything else could be taxed at a XX% federal rate. The rate would be the same for everyone and not have any brackets.



Thanks for your opinions.

that's not a flat tax.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
So what kind of taxes should there be? People want services; they have to be paid for somehow. Money does not grow on trees.

Until 1913, the Federal government had no income tax. How the hell did anything get built? How did we have the industrial revolution, the highest rate of GDP growth in American history? Because the federal government wasn't siphoning money from people's paychecks to give them "services" it wasn't authorized to provide. It made its money on tariffs and excises to provide courts and national defense. States handled the rest. Today, 50% of its revenue is from income taxes.

You'll need to be more specific on the valuable services you claim the federal government is offering. A huge chunk of that 50% is currently going to fund totally unnecessary military presence and incursions around the world. We have nuclear weapons, we're not going to be invaded. 9/11 was a terrorist attack that exposed CIA incompetence and airline deficiencies. It's not an invasion and it could have easily been prevented. The worst possible thing happened, we kneejerked and went into costly nation-building in two countries, forgot about Bin Laden, and generally just used 9/11 as a pretext for even more military expenditures than we already had. Meanwhile, our borders are completely unprotected and immigrants stream in freely to undermine the welfare state.

FEMA? What did they do. Nothing. Oh, except the fake press conference to make themselves look good.

Homeland Security? Useless. You have a greater chance being killed crossing the street than by a terrorist.

FBI? How much money have we wasted fighting marijuana and throwing non-violent users into our prisons. And what exactly is it that they do that state authorities can't?

Department of Agriculture. Just say no to farm subsidies.

Department of Education. Two words. Utter failure.

In fact, federal spending has exploded so substantially in the last ten years, that an abolition of the income tax would leave government with a budget the same as 1995.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...ng-ron-pauls-tax-plan/
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
Originally posted by: gotsmack
Originally posted by: jackace
Simple answer to OP's question is marginal value of money, or more generally marginal utility.

I don't understand what you are saying.

The first $15k +extra for dependents would be tax free. What does that have to do with marginal value of money?


Marginal value of money is the reason our tax system has brackets, and is progressive instead of a flat tax system. That is the simple answer to your original post asking "What are the arguments against a flat tax?"