Aslan
10-11-2013, 04:18 PM
I always hear my conservative brothers talking about a "flat tax" as a solution to everyone's problems. And it's a huge, huge farse. Kinda like school vouchers...it's not what it seems.
She, here's the problem with a "flat income tax"....taxes are like a see-saw when applied progressively. People at the bottom pay very little, people at the top pay much, much more. To "flatten" that...you have to lower one side of the see-saw while raising the other side of the see-saw.
Here's a real world example:
Lets say you have 4 people that represent all people in the US; we'll call them Ben, Walt, Shannon, and John.
- Ben makes 1.5 million/year.
- Walt makes 500k/year.
- Shannon makes 175k/year.
- John makes 100k/year.
Under the prgressive system:
- Ben pays 75% of his income (1.125 million) leaving him with 375,000/year.
- Walt pays 59% of his income (295k) leaving him with 205,000/year.
- Shannon pays 35% of her income ($61,250) leaving her with $113,750/year.
- John pays 26% of his income (26k) leaving him with $74,000/year.
So while the people at the top pay a larger %...they also keep a larger amount than everyone else. So they have "incentive" to make lots of money...because they'll end up with more money at the end of the year...even though they've paid more in taxes. And the BIGGEST lie...about the flat tax is people tend to leave out the important fact...that taxes are raised to support spending. In the above example...the tax system raises $1,507,250. Consider that what the government NEEDS to bring in to spend on the programs it operates.
So lets look at "flattening" the tax to...lets say 37.5% across the board:
- Ben now pays $562,500....leaving him with $937,500 to spend. (great deal for Ben!)
- Walt now pays $187,500...leaving him with $312,500 to spend. (decent deal for Walt)
- Shannon now pays $65,625...leaving her with $109,375...a little less than before...no bigee.
- John now pays $37,500...leaving him with $62,500. (not a good deal for John)
But, the important thing here is...under the flat tax...the taxes/revenue raised is = $853,125. So in order to flatten the tax to this rate...we would put a much more significant burden on those that can least afford to pay it...while at the same time...not raising NEARLY enough revenue. I ran the same numbers at a 57% flat tax...still ended up very short of the 1.5 million needed to operate the government.
So when you hear "flat tax"...as fair as it "sounds"...it won't produce the same amount of revenue...unless it's so unbearably high of a rate...that many middle class folks would live below the poverty line and even the more affluent of the middle class would end up paying MORE in taxes! And I know the response from the right is "well cut spending then"...but realize...realistically, the government...even if it cut nearly all non-essential things...bare bones budget...could only cut about 16%. Even at a 57% flat tax rate...WITH 16% cuts to spending...you're still short money.
Now...can a flat tax theoretically EVER work? Yes. If the income disparency between top and bottom is minimal....where the line is flatter to begin with...then flattening it further is less burdensome and less devastating to revenue. But our society has seen that gap between rich and poor WIDEN...not shrink. And the wider that gap...the less successful a flat tax would be.
She, here's the problem with a "flat income tax"....taxes are like a see-saw when applied progressively. People at the bottom pay very little, people at the top pay much, much more. To "flatten" that...you have to lower one side of the see-saw while raising the other side of the see-saw.
Here's a real world example:
Lets say you have 4 people that represent all people in the US; we'll call them Ben, Walt, Shannon, and John.
- Ben makes 1.5 million/year.
- Walt makes 500k/year.
- Shannon makes 175k/year.
- John makes 100k/year.
Under the prgressive system:
- Ben pays 75% of his income (1.125 million) leaving him with 375,000/year.
- Walt pays 59% of his income (295k) leaving him with 205,000/year.
- Shannon pays 35% of her income ($61,250) leaving her with $113,750/year.
- John pays 26% of his income (26k) leaving him with $74,000/year.
So while the people at the top pay a larger %...they also keep a larger amount than everyone else. So they have "incentive" to make lots of money...because they'll end up with more money at the end of the year...even though they've paid more in taxes. And the BIGGEST lie...about the flat tax is people tend to leave out the important fact...that taxes are raised to support spending. In the above example...the tax system raises $1,507,250. Consider that what the government NEEDS to bring in to spend on the programs it operates.
So lets look at "flattening" the tax to...lets say 37.5% across the board:
- Ben now pays $562,500....leaving him with $937,500 to spend. (great deal for Ben!)
- Walt now pays $187,500...leaving him with $312,500 to spend. (decent deal for Walt)
- Shannon now pays $65,625...leaving her with $109,375...a little less than before...no bigee.
- John now pays $37,500...leaving him with $62,500. (not a good deal for John)
But, the important thing here is...under the flat tax...the taxes/revenue raised is = $853,125. So in order to flatten the tax to this rate...we would put a much more significant burden on those that can least afford to pay it...while at the same time...not raising NEARLY enough revenue. I ran the same numbers at a 57% flat tax...still ended up very short of the 1.5 million needed to operate the government.
So when you hear "flat tax"...as fair as it "sounds"...it won't produce the same amount of revenue...unless it's so unbearably high of a rate...that many middle class folks would live below the poverty line and even the more affluent of the middle class would end up paying MORE in taxes! And I know the response from the right is "well cut spending then"...but realize...realistically, the government...even if it cut nearly all non-essential things...bare bones budget...could only cut about 16%. Even at a 57% flat tax rate...WITH 16% cuts to spending...you're still short money.
Now...can a flat tax theoretically EVER work? Yes. If the income disparency between top and bottom is minimal....where the line is flatter to begin with...then flattening it further is less burdensome and less devastating to revenue. But our society has seen that gap between rich and poor WIDEN...not shrink. And the wider that gap...the less successful a flat tax would be.