upnorthkyosa said:
I'm not totally sold for or against a flat tax. The only way I would even consider it is if all loopholes were slammed shut and all regressive taxes were eliminated.
The thing is, flat taxes are *inherently* regressive. Take a second to think about it, using a completely pulled-out-of-my-rear-end percentage of 20%.
If you tax a preschool teacher making $20K (not that many make anything like that much, but what the heck) 20% of her income, she takes home 16K to pay bills, consume like a good capitalist worker bee, and save (har har).
If you tax Billy Bigwig who makes $100 million a year 20% of his income, he takes home... wait for it... $80 million dollars.
The gap here between what both people need to spend to survive and what they have left over should illustrate to you the inherently regressive nature of such a taxation scheme.
Now, of course, I'm sure we'll see the question: "Why should wealthy people pay a higher percentage? That's not
fair."
At the risk of over-simplifying thousands of years of societal development, historic progress, and simple social justice, here's why:
The wealthy can afford to be taxed far more and still retain all the monetary advantages of being rich and special. Moreover, since those wealthy people who actually *earned* their wealth rather than inheriting it or winning it did so because of the advantages provided by our society, they have a responsibility to contribute to said society in proportion to their success.