3 ms·

A progressive tax would require the same size tax form, even a progressive tax that went negative at the lower incomes. Flat isn't the simplification -- elimin

by jbooth 12y ago

A progressive tax would require the same size tax form, even a progressive tax that went negative at the lower incomes. Flat isn't the simplification -- elimination of the billion deductions is the simplification.

masklinn 12y ago
A flat tax isn't progressive though (unless modulated by significant exemptions and deductions, and then you're back where you started). And effectively regressive once you factor in diminishing marginal utility.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
Not when you take into account that the tax form needs to include instructions, and any necessary tables. > Flat isn't the simplification -- elimination of the billion deductions is the simplification. If you have deductions, it isn't a flat tax. "Flat" typically implies both rate and lack of deductions.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 12y ago
  Ok, it would require 30 seconds of 3rd grade level math. That's clearly unacceptable, and we need to instead pursue a solution that pushes wealth upwards. Because simplicity, right? No other agendas involved there? Let's talk about job creators.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    There are many arguments in favor of a flat tax beyond just simplicity, fairness among them. Also, I wasn't just suggesting a flat tax, I was suggesting a much lower flat tax. If you took current government revenue from income taxes as a percentage of total personal income and just used that as the flat tax rate, that would indeed be quite unreasonable, mostly because that revenue number is far too high. On the other hand, a flat rate in the 4-5% range might not be unreasonable. Or, alternatively, a simple formula that would still count as "flat tax": tax = flat_rate * max(income - floor, 0) Where "floor" is a threshold below which you pay no taxes. That would address the set of people for whom even a tiny increase in taxes could make the difference between making ends meet and not.

by jbooth 12y ago

masklinn 12y ago

A flat tax isn't progressive though (unless modulated by significant exemptions and deductions, and then you're back where you started). And effectively regressive once you factor in diminishing marginal utility.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Not when you take into account that the tax form needs to include instructions, and any necessary tables. > Flat isn't the simplification -- elimination of the billion deductions is the simplification. If you have deductions, it isn't a flat tax. "Flat" typically implies both rate and lack of deductions.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 12y ago
Ok, it would require 30 seconds of 3rd grade level math. That's clearly unacceptable, and we need to instead pursue a solution that pushes wealth upwards. Because simplicity, right? No other agendas involved there? Let's talk about job creators.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  There are many arguments in favor of a flat tax beyond just simplicity, fairness among them. Also, I wasn't just suggesting a flat tax, I was suggesting a much lower flat tax. If you took current government revenue from income taxes as a percentage of total personal income and just used that as the flat tax rate, that would indeed be quite unreasonable, mostly because that revenue number is far too high. On the other hand, a flat rate in the 4-5% range might not be unreasonable. Or, alternatively, a simple formula that would still count as "flat tax": tax = flat_rate * max(income - floor, 0) Where "floor" is a threshold below which you pay no taxes. That would address the set of people for whom even a tiny increase in taxes could make the difference between making ends meet and not.