Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Flat Tax Discussion Thread

I heard from Steve Forbes, on a Fox News broadcast while he was promoting his new book that he believes a revolution in tax codes around the world will "make" us have to adopt such a tax to remain an economically viable power in the world.

I wanted to hear from my esteemed panel of friends here what you think on the subject (and have seen it brought up in other threads, but wanted to create one just for the topic).

My very un-researched opinion (for which I'm sure I'm in for hours of research/reading) is that a 6% flat tax will actually bring in more money for the government, and considering I'm paying something like 19-21% tax now, better for me.

Is my assumption founded or not, as I have not the time currently to really read on the subject? I leave you all to throw in your side of this subject and further educate me.


Oh and this is Forbes case for the flat tax. Not in full, of course as you would have to buy the book to get, but an indication of his ideas.

Thank you.

Oh, and if need be to compile some of the scraps in other threads, post em up if you think they're relevant so our anonymous viewers can see it all in one place. ^^

I'll be back, as I am an ardent opponent of a flat tax, and it is awfully good of Steve Forbes to offer it since he makes so much money and pays less tax than I do. A flat tax is a boon for the richest in America and will actually hurt the middle class. I'll be back with citations.

I hear you, NW....awfully awfully good of him...huh?

A flat tax rate across the board is very regressive taxation suggestion and would put a way heavier burden on smaller incomes.

What is it with some ultra rich people? I don't understand that level of greed.

Some other "Flat tax" references: Flat Tax, Wikipedia - of particular interest to me is something that I agree with Milton Friedman on, although, as far as I know it is the only thing I agree with him on.... the "negative tax."

Also Heritage Foundation's A Brief Guide to the Flat Tax, which, IMHO, is typical Heritage Foundation fantasy BS....

And Douglas Dunn's Flat Tax Fiasco, which points out that most such proposals are not truly flat but geared (like Dick Armey's, and Heritage's) to benefit the wealthy almost exclusively.

Just some stuff to chew on while I go back to work.

I have asked myself and others that question for years and the answer finally came to me reading Grisham's "The Appeal" the other day. In that book, a multi-billionaire, who can't possibly spend everything he has, wants more because it would put him up higher on the Forbes list. It's all a competition/ego thing with other billionaires. Which, if this is true (and I can't think of any other rationale), means that these people are rather insecure in their skin and have to look outward to find self-worth.

That comes from someone who, judging from the amount of assets I have, must be extremely secure in her skin as I am pretty satisfied with my station in life.

Anyway, back to the flat tax. I feel, without having researched it, that a flat tax would bring the hammer down very hard on the middle class and can't see any reason (except for an easier tax form to fill out) for it to be enacted.

Much more in Steve Forbes's Flat tTre

I do not know, but it seems like wealthy people always find ways not to pay a progressive tax, So isn't the idea of the flat tax to eliminate all loop holes. The idea being that the righ will pay more through a flat tax with no loop hole than with the current convoluted tax code

Of course, one of those loop holes would be the mortgage interest rate deduction.

Forbes's flat-tax, Huckabee's fair-tax, and every other scheme offered by the right wing is a sham of a 3-card monte fraud.

And that is as it should be.

Ardy, the biggest loophole was the one that Forbes built in - his flat tax only applied to wage income. Capital gains, inheritance, and other so-called unearned income is exempt from taxation. The best quote from the article toots cited immediately preceded the quote he used:Read The Heritage Foundation article I referenced earlier and you will immediately see the con that it truly is:"Double taxation?" Sounds unfair, doesn't it, except that it is a blatant lie! What they are really saying is "ignore the man behind the curtain" - don't pay attention to the fact that our proposal completely ignores 87% of the income earned by Americans and pushes all of the tax burden to the wage-earning public.

Not that I want to derail the original discussion. It may be at some level a flat tax can be fair. The problem is that the arguments marshalled to the contrary are flaky. Personally, I favor a simpler but more progressive system with tax rates rising to 45% (and maybe even 55%) for the top earners. I might even tie the tax rate to the average income level - wouldn't that be interesting? Flat Tax by quintiles?