8 ms·
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. Bec
by 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 agoThere 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.