What is more fair, a Flat Tax for all Americans OR making those that earn more pay a higher percentage?

Question

Why should someone that works hard pay more (as a percentage) than someone that is lazy? From $1 to $1billion should all be taxed at the same rate, no exclusions or credits. Only one short form that shows how much you made, multiply times 10%, then a line for the amount due.

Answer 1

Actually a flat tax -would- make the rich pay more. Ronald Reagan's big tax reform began as a 'flat tax', removing the high marginal tax rates and also eliminating all the loopholes. Reagan actually promised that the rich would pay MORE. Of course by the time the bill was passed, the rich paid -less-.



Conservatives like to point out that the rich pay a larger share of the total tax load now than they did before Reagan. But what they're actually saying is that even after a huge tax cut from Reagan, they still pay more than they did before, because they make so much more than they did before! The Reagan tax cuts were just the opening round of an all-over plan to concentrate wealth in the US, which has been going on for 30 years now.



All through the 80s and into the 90s, the term 'flat tax' was very popular, and MANY politicians, of BOTH parties, had flat tax proposals. None of them was really realistic, and none got very far. Republican flat tax proposals had huge deductions for the rich, for capital gains, inheritance, etc. Democratic proposals exempted the home interest deduction and some even allowed you to deduct your rent if you didn't own a home just to be fair. None of the proposals were very well thought out or detailed, they were really just campaign strategies.



The reason our tax code is so complex is that it hides hundreds (or thousands) of special deals Congress has cut for certain industries, certain companies, even certain individual people! Congress is never going to cancel these special deals because they generate hundreds of millions in campaign contributions every election. So for politicians to even -talk- about a flat tax is more than a little bit disingenuous.



Clearly, the Republicans believe it's just somehow immoral to tax the rich. The rich are heroes to them and deserve to enjoy the fruits of their 'labor' without having to pay taxes. Taxes are for working people. But from my point of view, the more you make, the bigger a percentage you can afford to pay in taxes. The rich get more from our government! They have enormous influence over the political system. In 30 years they have more than doubled their wealth and their share of ownership, and a big part of this was paying less in taxes. Plus the taxes they -didn't- pay resulted in a huge debt which we will -all- pay off for decades, and of course the heavier portion of that will fall on working people.



Also, if you look at US history, the best times we've had in this country (in terms of thriving economy, low unemployment, rising standard of living) have been times of sharply progressive taxation. The rich were still rich, but EVERYONE did better. We've had 30 years now to prove, conclusively, undeniably, that Reaganomics has been a total failure. Making the rich richer has only hurt the rest of us.

Answer 2

If you're like 95% of all Americans, you can't afford a flat tax. A flat rate tax would have to be assessed at at least 25% on all income with no exemptions, credits, or deductions at all. Only the wealthiest taxpayers pay a net rate even close to that.



Political "compromise" has backed us into the position that a flat tax would be impossible without changes that business would not stand for and probably could not afford. In the early 1960s it was possible to support a family of 4 on the $1.40 minimum wage. Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be around $14 an hour or even higher. Interestingly enough, it would take about $28,000 a year to support that same family of four to the same standard as in 1965 on $2,800.



Why did the minimum wage shrink so badly? No surprise that "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with allowing it to rise, so they offered the Earned Income Credit as a way to help the lowest of earners scratch out an existence. The Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit were offered up under the guise of "compassionate conservatism" in order to maintain an artificially low minimum wage. Like a band of idiots, everyone else went along with the idea.



Fast forward to 2010 and consider the plight of the single mom supporting 3 kids on a crap $9 an hour McJob. Switching to a flat 25% tax would cost her $7,984 in refundable credits which bring her within striking distance of the poverty level in most of the US. Actually, they're about $2,000 short, but she manages to get by on lots of white-box mac & cheese. Tack on a $4,500 tax bill and her cash flow crashes by $12,484. Within weeks, she and her kids are on the streets or in a shelter and probably on welfare. Mind you, she's not some lazy bum as she's working full time but basic survival is now impossible.



Or consider the typical family of 4 earning the $46k median family income. They get by OK, though not much in the way of extravagances. Might even own a home in a lower cost area. They don't pay any Federal income tax to speak of, about $160 a year. A 25% tax burden and the loss of the Child Tax Credit would cost them $11,500 a year. That leaves them only slightly better off that the single mom is today. Home ownership is out of the question and they rent in one of the harsher neighborhoods.



On the other hand, a fat-cat $10 million a year CEO (who probalby helped contribute the economic meltdown through unbridled greed) gets a cool $1 million a year cut in his taxes. How much of that do you think he'll share with out single mom or family of four? You damned well know the answer to that: $0.00.



So you tell me, Sparky, which is more fair to society taken as a whole?? The irresponsible tax cuts and runaway spending over the past decade has quadrupled the deficit and driven poverty up by 20%. The wealthiest 2% of taxpayers saw their discretionary income nearly double, while the middle class got comparative crumbs at about 6% growth. I have not seen a single one of those billionaires do a damned thing to create new jobs for anyone but a few stockbrokers and investment bankers.



Lastly, if you consider tax burden as a factor of the amount of wealth controlled, the top 2% of all earners in the country pay about HALF of their "fair share." The fact that they pay in more dollars than someone at the median income is utterly irrelevant.

Answer 3

47% of Americans pay no taxes. If a flat tax is substituted, all will be asked top pay tax. And that in turn will lead to revolution.



Pick your poison.

Answer 4

Just because someone is poor does not mean that they are lazy.



Most rich people would be rich if it weren't for all of the poor and middle class people working in the trenches.

Answer 5

the simple solution is to bring back the pre reagan era tax rates for corporations and the rich . i can't believe how cheap the rich are getting . they ( you? ) have become pathological accumulators . they ( you? ) need to learn to share the pie . as far as billionaires working harder ? i bet a landscaper works up more sweat in one day than a billionaire does in a year . i oppose the ( your ? ) zionist agenda of greed . i salute a flag with five pointed stars , not six .

Answer 6

Depends on how you define "fair"



If you define fair as sharing of resources, a graduated income tax is fair.



If you define fair as equality of opportunity, the flat tax works best.



Personally, I prefer flat with large personal exemptions so the poor who live paycheck to paycheck aren't further burdened by taxes.

_

Answer 7

Obviously a flat % would be most fair.



There are a lot of people now who don't work at all for money, even those who have lots.

Answer 8

What should happen is that there only be sales tax, then the rice who buy more would be paying more, and the poor who can't buy much don't.