Replies

I call BS on the idea that this will simplify anything. The big question is always how do you define 'income'. For the average employed person, the 1040EZ is already pretty simple. For somebody with money, the question of what is income, what is deductible, will always be there. And for business, there will always be the need for accountants to keep track of deductible and non-deductible expense.

You don't get it. The 1040EZ form has little to do with the accounting of income. It is simple because there are no complex deductions. Likewise, businesses wouldn't need a staff of tax accountants and lawyers because there would be no deductions. You pay 17% of income...there are no deductions. Personally, I'd make the tax rate on business 15% of income. Any tax on a domestic business ultimately ends up as a tax on the individual anyway.

There's no problem figuring out income. Any payment to you from someone else would be income. You're confusing the concept of income with the current concept of net income.

Unless you have some kind of social system that has no form of gov't yet remains viable, you need some way to fund gov't. Friedman's idea is workable. The only tax that is truly evil is a tax on wealth, not income.

Likewise, businesses wouldn't need a staff of tax accountants and lawyers because there would be no deductions. You pay 17% of income...there are no deductions

Even if the bottom line is less than 17% of income? That would destroy most every business.

You pay 17% of income...there are no deductions.

What a minute. How many companies have bottom line return over 17%? Maybe Goldman Sachs, but not your local grocery store.

Suppose a grocery store sells $10M of stuff. They have expenses of $9M. What's their income? $10M or $1M? If $10M, they have to pay $1.7M in tax, which is greater than their expected income as calculated today.

If a business cannot deduct expenses, this becomes just a sales tax, and not an income tax at all as far as business is concerned.

I do get it. The 1040EZ is simple because wage income is simple. Business 'income' is never simple, unless you define income = gross receipts, which nobody does when talking about income tax.

The 17% flat income tax I do not like because:
=this flat income tax rate omits the 15.3% FICA taxes that must also be paid in addition to the oft quoted 17% rate.
=the flat income tax retains paycheck withholding
=the flat income tax keeps business taxes hidden in higher prices, lower wages, or reduced ROI.
=the flat income tax keeps our exports at a price disadvantage [ie it is not border adjusted.]
=The flat income tax would, IMO, morph all too quickly due to influence by lobbyists back into what we have now by changing the definition(s) of income.

But the flat income tax is indeed better than what we have now as all taxpayers would pay the same marginal rate [if only briefly]

My support is behind an excise tax on retail consumption. Such a tax does not have any of the problems listed above - it resolves/eliminates those problems. THe rate on such a tax would be to add 29% to the cost of retail consumption purchases [not business purchases]

This nrst excise has only a political hurdle - how to have the poorest not be hit with taxes that come to 50% of spending.