08-10-2011, 11:47 AM
cbelt3 wrote:
Ted, no offense. I have NOT done the math. I simply believe that anything is better than the horrifyingly complex 'system' that we have now.
I understand that there are a number of theories out there. I also understand that, in order to make some of them politically acceptable, they include 'deductions', 'progressive' scales, and so forth. Such compromises can and will be necessary. But they're a slippery slope.
I am for simplifying the tax code by reducing the number of deductions that is politically feasible to do. That you included 'progressive scales' in with deductions seems to me to show that you still consider that simplification = flat tax and that a stepped system is just another complication like deductions. But I think I've showed that a stepped system is essentially no more complicated than a flat tax when they both involve the same deductions allowed or taken away.
I think it is inherent in any flat tax system that it would shift more of the tax burden away from highest incomes toward lower incomes compared to the current system. Because of that, it concerns me greatly that a flat tax is equated with being "the simple tax" when a progressive stepped system is functionally as simple AND wouldn't result in a shift of taxes from higher to lower.
If we want to simplify the tax system, we can do it by getting rid of deductions. After getting rid of as many deductions as possible, then we can decide on a flat tax that I think inherently favors the wealthier or we can decide on a progressive stepped tax that favors the less wealthy - either system will be functionally as simple as the other. We could mitigate the effect of a flat tax raising taxes on the less wealthy by putting back/keeping some deductions aimed at them, but then you just unsimplify the thing. Why not just go with a progressive stepped tax.