Extremely well thought out and presented here. And the government will collect more with less effort. and everyone pays their fair share.
2 Likes
Example 5 percent on income, no tax on social security, tips, or overtime.
1 Like
24 countries already implement a flat tax. They range from 10%-25%.
I think a flat tax of 10% is a good rate for individual income tax. Right now that 10% bracket of folks doesnât really pay tax if they are single due to the standard decuction.
Corporate income tax at 15% will make the foreign governments happy since we wont be below theirs.
For individual income, maybe the 10% tax doesnât kick in until you make $40,001.
This will reduce the expense of the IRS. The IRS can be reduced to just processing new claims and other old items that need cleaned up from prior years.
This will eliminate folks getting a huge refund for money they didnât put in. If folks want to overwithhold because they like getting a larger refund let them ( its not smart financially, but you do you boo).
The expenses individuals and companies pay for tax preparers will be reduced to zero. The amount of overtime companies pay to make sure they get all their tax paperwork done on time will be reduced.
1 Like
I have to disagree on that. A VAT would be fairer, because we could eliminate corporate taxes then too. We also capture âdarkâ money from illegal activities like prostitution and drug dealers. A Flat tax only captures those of us that are honest to declare our incomes - a VAT gets charged when you buy something. So those richie rich illegals/criminals and corporations no longer get any âbreaksâ, either through âdarkâ money or tax credits.
1 Like
The number needs to be low and based on the revenue lines. Once deductions and exemptions are eliminated everyone can contribute at a lower percentage. 3% is a target. This lower number can be accomplished by at the same time reducing government waste, duplication, regulation, oversight and the size of government. The government collections would be correlated to the success of the taxpayers.
Thank you for sharing your ideas.
1 Like
Thank you, Jeffrey Rober Carter @pointsnfigures1 for sharing your website, FairTax.org.
1 Like
I would take it a step further, a flat tax on individuals at 1% and a 10% tax rate on all businesses. No loop holes and everyone pays a little something. All the IRS employees could be retrained or repurposed to help with the back log of legal Immigration or to help out with other sectors of government that need more support as they are eventually phased out of IRS duties.
There needs to be a minimum income level, maybe with pased-in rate right above that. Someone making only 10K/yr doesnât need to pay the Fed gov !K.
I made a post saying this idea is in the ConstitutionâŚ
Sry itâs so longâŚ
Just showing you that America is not following the law yet!!
The Original Intent Behind the âApportionmentâ of Taxes (Article I, Section 9)
The Constitution originally required that any direct taxes (like an income tax) be apportioned among the states according to population. This means that any tax that the government directly levied on individuals must be fairly distributed based on the population of each state.
Article I, Section 9 (regarding direct taxes) states:
âNo Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.â
This clause is often interpreted as demanding that any direct tax should be fairly distributed, preventing one state from disproportionately bearing the burden of taxes. A flat tax, which treats everyone equally by taxing the same percentage of income, would adhere to this concept by ensuring that no one is taxed unfairly due to their state of residence, wealth, or other factors. Unlike a progressive tax, which imposes higher rates on higher earners, a flat tax ensures uniformity and proportionality, which some argue is more in line with the Constitutionâs original focus on equality in taxation.
The 16th Amendment and the Principle of Equal Protection in Taxation
The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to levy income taxes without apportioning them according to state populations. However, the amendment doesnât specify how that income should be taxed. Proponents of the flat tax argue that because the Constitution allows for income taxes, it should be within the scope of constitutional powers to implement a simple, equal percentage for all taxpayers.
16th Amendment:
âThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.â
A flat tax treats all income equally, imposing the same rate on every individual, irrespective of their income level. This could be seen as a more uniform application of tax law, which may resonate with the Equal Protection principle found in the 14th Amendment, which ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law. Advocates argue that a flat tax system provides an equitable way to fulfill the governmentâs revenue needs without imposing unnecessary complexity or favoring one group of people over another.
The General Welfare Clause (Article I, Section 8)
Another constitutional provision that flat tax proponents refer to is the General Welfare Clause, which gives Congress the power to tax for the âgeneral Welfare.â Advocates of a flat tax might argue that such a system could be the simplest, most transparent, and least burdensome way of collecting taxes to fund the general welfare, thus aligning with the constitutional intent of promoting the common good.
Article I, Section 8 (General Welfare Clause):
âThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.â
A flat tax system can be seen as a means to ensure that everyone contributes a fair share toward the common welfare without overly complicating the tax code or creating a system that disproportionately burdens certain income groups.
The No âTitle of Nobilityâ Clause (Article I, Section 9)
The No Title of Nobility clause prohibits the government from granting titles of nobility or aristocratic privileges, ensuring that no citizen enjoys special privileges over others. Advocates of a flat tax argue that a progressive tax system (where wealthier individuals pay higher rates) could be seen as favoring the wealthy, which they argue is at odds with the notion of equality before the law. A flat tax, by imposing the same rate on everyone, would be a more egalitarian system, in line with the Constitutional principles of equality.
Article I, Section 9 (No Titles of Nobility Clause):
âNo Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United StatesâŚâ
A flat tax, in this argument, avoids creating a system where wealthier individuals might feel entitled to special treatment, or poorer individuals might feel unfairly burdened.
Avoiding Complexity and Favoritism in Taxation
Flat tax proponents often point to the simplicity and fairness of a flat tax system. The Constitution does not require tax laws to be complex or convoluted, and a progressive income tax system (which has multiple tax brackets and deductions) can be seen as both complex and prone to favoritism. The Constitution allows for Congress to make tax laws, but doesnât demand complexity in those laws.
Article I, Section 8 (Congressional Power to Tax):
âThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and ExcisesâŚâ
A flat tax system could be seen as fulfilling this power in the most direct, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. By imposing the same rate on everyone, the flat tax avoids creating a system with loopholes or special privileges for certain groups, which could be seen as inconsistent with the Constitutionâs focus on equality.
Conclusion:
The Flat Tax and the Constitution
While the Constitution does not explicitly demand a flat tax, certain clauses provide an argument that a flat tax system aligns with the principles of fairness, simplicity, and equality under the law.
Specifically:
The apportionment rule from Article I, Section 9, could support the idea of equal taxation across all states.
The 16th Amendment allows for income taxation, and a flat tax may be seen as a uniform method of applying this power.
The General Welfare Clause could justify a flat tax as an efficient and equitable way to fund the government.
The No Title of Nobility Clause might be interpreted as supporting a flat tax because it avoids creating different classes based on income.
Ultimately, proponents argue that a flat tax is simpler, more transparent, and more in line with the original constitutional intent to avoid undue burdens and complexity in the tax system. However, it should be noted that tax policy has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, and the framers did not foresee modern systems of income taxation, making this a matter of interpretation and debate.
I agree. If we are going to continue with tax credits then you should only be able to get a refund up to the amount you paid in.
If tariffs arenât enough a flat tax rate would be the most just solution.
A flat sales tax would treat everyone equally. It would also reach illegals. Everyone shops at a store.
The Fair Tax Plan was the best idea regarding taxes in the history of taxes. But libs misrepresented it, and the public failed to research. It is the BEST WAY TO ACCUMULATE WEALTH, for everyone.
It is likely some hybrid income tax and national sales tax could work without punishing lifestyles. Most millionaires live fairly frugal lifestyles which is why they are wealthy. Many high income people are also people in huge debt with big homes, fancy cars.
I think youâd need to put in a poverty floor; something along the lines of an exemption for households with a total income below 25K
No. Everyone has to pay the exact same percentage no matter how much you make.
1% flat transaction tax! 1 Percent Tax Proposal 12-4-24.docx