Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US adopt the Flat Tax Amendment?
Results so far:
| Yes | 60% | 153 votes | Total: 253 votes | |
| No | 40% | 100 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAll tax paying Americans should really consider the benefits of the Flat Tax Amendment. As with every plan there are some draw backs, but the benefits far out way the negative aspects. Not everyone will find that this plan works to their advantage but I believe most of working class citizens will agree even though the math may differ from one area to the next.
I will use a family that I know personally in this example. In this family both the wife and husband work full time jobs. Last year their combined income was just a little over $100,000.00 and they paid $20,000.00 in Federal Taxes. This does not include State Taxes or F.I.C.A. Now once they have cashed their payroll checks each week and paid 20% of their income to the Federal Government, they then get to pay 7% - 9% on each purchase they make with the remaining 80%. So if they spend $200 on groceries, and $25.00 to rent movies and get a pizza they just paid about $20 more in sale taxes. Each time they stop to buy a drink or bag of chips the same applies. When they stop to fill up there gas tanks they can pay up to $15 more in sales tax. This may seem like small amounts but over a period of a month these can add up. Then you have to take into consideration sales tax on large purchases such as homes and automobiles.
Now let's consider a person that gets their money from illegal sources such as selling drugs. This person pays nothing out of his earnings to the Federal Government. He also pays no F.I.C.A. or State Tax. The only ground that we are equal on is when we make purchases. With the adoption of the Flat Rate Tax we would all pay 20% at the time we make purchases. Now we are all on even playing ground so to speak. Now of course the wealthy still need to pay a bigger share depending on the amount the are worth, but us middle class citizens would definitely feel some relief.
Learn more about this author, Regina W.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Here's a fun experiment: open two browser windows. In the first browser, look at 'Countries that have flat tax systems' in the 'flat tax' entry for Wikipedia. In the second browser, look at the 'Epidemiology' portion of the 'suicide' entry for Wikipedia. Compare Wikipedia's maps for countries that have flat tax and countries with the highest suicide rates.
Now, this isn't a scientific experiment or anything, but it's interesting to note that the former Soviet Union, which has embraced flat tax, has some of the most abysmally low wages in the world, and, not surprisingly, the highest suicide rates in the world. In fact, the country with the highest suicide rate in the world, Lithuania, is a flat tax country.
Low wages (read: abject poverty) in Lithuania caused an estimated 360,000 workers to leave the country by the end of 2004. According to Wikipedia, "In September 2004, the Lithuanian Trucking Association reported a shortage of 3,000-4,000 truck drivers."
Estonia has had a flat tax since 1994. Economist Olev Raju, the former chairman of Estonia's parliamentary budget committee, stated in September 2005 that "income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder - this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election."
In Russia, which is a flat tax country, the World Bank has reported that, in spite of massive economic growth in Moscow, 20 percent of the Russian population lives below the poverty line, which is defined as a monthly income of 1,000 roubles (less than 30 euros, or $38).
It's interesting to look at the actual human cost of simplistic economic theories like a flat tax. Most developed nations have not adopted a flat tax because the effects of such a policy - a massive increase in wealth for the elite, worsening poverty for the poor - are so obviously inhumane that no one in their right mind could govern such a country with a clean conscience.
Democrats have always insisted that those who benefit most from a national economy should pay the most to support the underpinnings of that economy. Republicans have always insisted that everyone should be treated equally - the poor should be treated as if they have the exact same resources, including stock portfolios, as the rich.
Which argument makes sense?
The flat tax theory is based on the concept of trickle-down economics. According to the concept of trickle-down economics, if we give more money to people who are already very, very wealthy, they will always use this extra money to create more jobs for the poor. The money will then trickle down to the poor - in the case of Russia, we're talking about as much as $38 per month!
I am endlessly amazed by the gullibility of conservative voters. The Republican Party, which is dominated by the wealthy elite, is now trying to convince conservatives everywhere that the United States needs to slash social spending, while simultaneously increasing defense spending. We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq - in many instances, billions of dollars have simply disappeared from the ledgers of private contractors - but we can't afford to give retirees their Social Security. We're drawing up plans to invade Iran, but we can't afford to fund Medicare.
Have you all lost your minds?
Learn more about this author, Jonathan Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Economy
- Does it matter whether the federal government runs a deficit?
- Will economic growth result from tax cuts or tax hikes?
- Should the US Congress end tax breaks for hedge funds?
- Is the middle class disappearing in America?
- Should the US government bailout mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
- Should a federal tax holiday be part of an economic bailout?
