Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax (But with Tax-the-Rich Unlimited Payroll Tax)
Forbes.Com

Posted on 10/02/2005 9:51:56 PM PDT by indianrightwinger

A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax John C. Goodman, 09.29.05, 12:07 PM ET

How to reform our tax system--and satisfy both the left and the right. Steve Forbes has done a commendable job spelling out why America's tax system must be simplified. Scrap the mind-numbingly complex, loophole-filled, savings-averse code, advises the editor-in-chief of this magazine, in favor of one elegant, clear rate. A flat tax is what America needs.

That all sounds good to me. But I think we can do even better. Under Steve Forbes' plan the flat rate would be 17%. All families would get generous personal exemptions, so that a family of four would not pay taxes until its income exceeded $46,000. To encourage growth, the Forbes plan exempts income that is saved and invested. Which means that the Forbes plan is really a consumption tax. It taxes people based on what they take out of the system, not on what they put in.

I would offer Americans an even lower flat tax rate--14% as opposed to 17%--and at the same time do more to help low-income people. Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff and I have put together a plan that works in the following way.

First we'd get rid of the across-the-board $9,000-per-person exemption in the Forbes plan. Why should billionaires like Bill Gates get an exemption? Forbes is giving too much money away to rich people. We'd save that exemption money and give it instead, in the form of a rebate, to the bottom third of earners, those who bring home roughly less than $25,000 for a family of four.

Second, Forbes ignores the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax (split between employer and employee). Currently, income over $90,000 a year is not subject to the tax. We don't think it's fair that a $50,000-a-year autoworker has to pay payroll taxes on all his income while a million-dollar-a-year auto executive does not. Under our proposal all wages would face the same income and payroll tax rates.

There is just no way Forbes' plan would ever fly in Congress. Politicians are not going to adopt a system that taxes the wages of the rich at a lower rate than the wages of blue-collar workers. Under our proposal all wages would face the same income and payroll tax rates. And these rates would be paid only once. After that all savings would accumulate tax free.

Our plan allows us to have a lower flat-tax rate and produces results that should appeal to conservatives as well as liberals. What conservatives most want is an uncomplicated system that taxes income only once (when it is earned) at one low rate. Liberals are more concerned about progressivity. They want the rich to bear more of a burden than the poor.

The left objects to most consumption tax proposals because they are not progressive. Low- and middle-income people would pay a greater share of what they earn than rich people. What we are proposing is more progressive than the Forbes flat tax. It's also more progressive than the current system. Using economic modeling, Kotlikoff and I found that under our flat tax the rich would bear more of the burden than they currently do.

We would also use the rebate of tax dollars to the bottom third of taxpayers to solve other social problems. For example, instead of people automatically getting the 14% rebate, we would require them to show that they have health insurance and a retirement pension as a condition. Specifically, to get one-half the rebate (7%), low-income families would have to produce proof of health insurance. This would encourage millions of people who qualify to enroll in Medicaid or in their employer's health plan. Barring that, families could apply the tax rebate to health insurance they purchase on their own. We propose making the other half (7%) contingent on proof of a pension, an IRA, a 401(k) or some other savings account.

So instead of national health insurance and more government spending on the elderly, we would use our flat-tax proposal to urge people to solve these problems on their own.

President Bush wants to reshape our tax system. Many in Congress agree on the need for change. The oft-repeated objection is that tax reform benefits high-income taxpayers at the expense of low-income taxpayers. That objection need not apply.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; flattax; forbes; payrolltax; taxation; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

1 posted on 10/02/2005 9:52:00 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

I always love the term "rebate" to people who dont pay taxes...


2 posted on 10/02/2005 9:54:52 PM PDT by WatchYourself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Is there a link?


3 posted on 10/02/2005 10:03:27 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (I just stepped in a big pile of sassy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

tax ping


4 posted on 10/02/2005 10:03:40 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger; Admin Moderator

AM -- could you please put the link to the article in. It seems like it wasn't included.

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2005/1017/042.html

Thanks


5 posted on 10/02/2005 10:05:18 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Sorry, I missed it this time. Don't know how to edit the post.


6 posted on 10/02/2005 10:10:06 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Once you posted it, you can't edit it, only the Admin Moderator can, that's why I also sent him the post.


7 posted on 10/02/2005 10:14:01 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
Finally - a flat tax every one can love. And the pre-bate is geared towards making people responsible for securing their own future. And at 14% - its a heck a lot better than a tax that soaks up 50% of your income.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
8 posted on 10/02/2005 10:14:58 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Thanks!! I learn. Still fairly new here.


9 posted on 10/02/2005 10:15:49 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Not with an unlimited 12% payroll tax....

I will NEVER favor that idea, no matter what context.


10 posted on 10/02/2005 10:16:35 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

No problem. The article is a good find, and you'll learn the posting methods.


11 posted on 10/02/2005 10:17:27 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Man! The Forbes site is just crawling with annoying pop-ups. Ugh! What makes them think people want to be annoyed like that?


12 posted on 10/02/2005 10:26:18 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (I just stepped in a big pile of sassy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day

You need a firewall or set your IE to stop pop-ups.


13 posted on 10/02/2005 10:28:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

I agree.

Self employed people pay the full 12.5% in addition to all the other income taxes.

Social security is suppose to be for my own retirement. I don't get more back if I pay more in. That's wrong. Many state and federal employees have gotten to opt out of SS. They get a drastically better deal. What they pay in goes to what they actually get back.

I think you ought to be able to provide a bond or some other financial instrument to prove you won't need taken care of later and be able to opt out entirely.


14 posted on 10/02/2005 10:33:01 PM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I do have a firewall that stops most pop-ups. But Forbes has that annoying "Take This Survey" box that hovers in front of you wherever you scroll on their page. My firewall does nothing for that.


15 posted on 10/02/2005 10:33:45 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (I just stepped in a big pile of sassy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

IB4TZ?


16 posted on 10/02/2005 10:45:27 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

What is IB4TZ?


17 posted on 10/02/2005 10:48:44 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger; Admin Moderator
In (posted on the thread) before the Zot.

indianrightwinger Since Sep 4, 2005

Note: I initally misread the date as 10-04-05, not 9-04-05, so I could be wrong about you. But posting a vanity about liberal tax ideas after <30 days here is still awfully suspicious:

Why should billionaires like Bill Gates get an exemption? Forbes is giving too much money away to rich people.

We don't think it's fair that a $50,000-a-year autoworker has to pay payroll taxes on all his income while a million-dollar-a-year auto executive does not.

What we are proposing is more progressive than the Forbes flat tax. It's also more progressive than the current system.

We would also use the rebate of tax dollars to the bottom third of taxpayers to solve other social problems.


I pinged the Admin mod and will leave it in his/her capable hands.
18 posted on 10/02/2005 10:57:36 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger; Turbopilot

IB4TZ means "In before the ZOT." Turbopilot suspects you are a troll, presumably because your registration is so recent. You don't appear to be a troll to me. Welcome to FR.


19 posted on 10/02/2005 10:58:37 PM PDT by Huntress (Possession really is nine tenths of the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
I've just looked at your post history, which is legit, and noticed that this was actually an article at Forbes.com with a bad link, and not a vanity. I hereby retract my previous accusation and apologize. Welcome to FR.

I will, however, note that the idea referenced in the above article is far inferior to the Fair Tax proposal currently before Congress. You should support that instead :-D
20 posted on 10/02/2005 11:02:33 PM PDT by Turbopilot (Nothing in the above post is or should be construed as legal research, analysis, or advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson