The Flat Tax Essay

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

The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.

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.

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

The federal tax code has a level of complexity so great, that reforming it should be the one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Instead, proposal after proposal calling for reform die in Congress. And there have been a lot of proposals. Arlen Specter (D-PA) put some form of a flat tax/tax reform proposal into Congress’s hands every year from 1995-2010. This is because, for the most part, the fight for reform always comes down to a two sided debate. One side wants to keep the current complex structure and the other sees no other alternative than blowing this current structure up and moving to a flat rate system. All of this brings me to the arguments for/against the flat rate tax system.

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.

In conclusion, there are several valid points on both sides of the argument of adopting a flat federal tax. Doing so would undoubtedly make the process of filing taxes much easier, but in my opinion, flat rate taxes should not be an option. I do not find it fair to tax a certain percentage of income which would be a big hit to lower income households and businesses, but a more minimal hit to someone with a higher income. To a wealthy person, that percentage of money could mean sacrificing something relatively unimportant,

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.

Our current income tax system today is very complex, unfair, inhibits saving, investment and job creation, imposes a heavy burden on families, and weakens the integrity of the democratic process. It can't be fixed and must be replaced. The U.S. income tax code is a long and complex system. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. The administrative costs of the tax system far exceed those borne directly by the IRS. Each year Americans devote 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van produced in the U.S.

"A revolutionary change in our tax system is fundamental to re-energizing the American economy and restoring the American dream" (Moore 1). Currently, there are two major plans being considered to try and fix the tax system in the United States. These two plans are the Flat Tax and the National Retail Sales Tax. "Both the Flat Tax and a National Sales Tax would replace today's discriminatory tax structure with a single low rate. Either plan would promote the kind of capital formation that America needs to boost workers' incomes and raise long-term economic growth" (Mitchell 1). This means that the flat tax would take away the savings from the government and pass them on to the citizens and businesses. By doing this, there would be a rise in long-term economic growth.

As with any government program, the type of tax imposed on the taxpayers depends on the political group currently controlling the government. With a republican president in office, we are seeing the effects of the conservative philosophy: cut taxes and limit government involvement, thereby decreasing poverty by stimulating economic growth. Earlier in his term, President George W. Bush passed a major tax cut with this rational guiding his tax policy:

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.

Should the flat tax rate system be implemented? No, the flat tax rate system should not be implemented. In this paper, the pro arguments will be presented, which will affirm the thesis. Then the con arguments will be presented. A rebuttal will then follow, and finally, the author’s conclusion will be offered.

The United States tax system is in complete disarray. Republicans and Democrats agree that the current tax code is complex, unfair, and costly. The income tax system is so complex; the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and 280 forms to explain the 480 forms (Armey 1). The main reason the tax system is so complex is because of the special preferences such as deductions and tax credits. Complexity in the current tax system forces Americans to spend 5.4 billion hours complying with the tax code, which is more time than it takes to manufacture every car, truck and van produced in the United States (Armey 1). Time is not the only thing that is lost with the current tax system; Americans also lose

This type of tax system would eliminate incentives to shift activities from one period to another. If there is no income tax, there is no more consideration for timing or considerations of yearly income. I think that there would still be incentives to shift activities from one type to another, but it would be a different shift. For instance, for corporations, there are many things that are considered tax deductible, but with a flat tax, this would be irrelevant because there would be no itemized deductions allowed. Such a tax system would not eliminate incentives to shift activities from one pocket to another because low-income taxpayers would not have to file tax returns, so other taxpayers would want to shift activities to the low-income tax bracket to avoid having to pay the flat tax.