Broken Tax System

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

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.

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.

Did you know that an astonishing 43.4 percent of the people in America do not pay any income taxes" (McCullagh 1)? This is roughly 65.6 million people that aren't paying taxes and this is putting our economy and country at its breaking point. Our current tax system penalizes those that work and save money. People that pay no taxes still get to enjoy the benefits. The United States needs to look at which tax is fairer to the people and easier to administer by the government. Although some may disagree, the Flat Tax should replace the income tax to simplify and bring fairness to the system, increase income, and create jobs.

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 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

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