Yes, the idea of a "progressive" flat tax is what should
be debated. Why not marry the simplicity of "flatness"
with progressivity: 15% for incomes less than $30K,
17% for $30k-$50K, 19% for $50K-$80K, 21% for $80K-$110K,
23% for $110K-$160K, 25% for $160K-200K, etc. (one example).
And capital gains for individuals should be taxed as income, sorry.
Dick Armey and the others who try to justify a "one-rate" flat
tax try to argue that everyone would be paying the same rate,
not admitting that those dollars in absolute terms are quite
a good deal for the wealthy. The sad thing is that much of the
public is not well educated in the simple comparison of
some of these numbers (ratios, percentages, etc.) to
critically understand who is being served by some of
these plans. And of course the press doesn't help much.
-Steve Grube ================================ Max Sawicky wrote:
> Excellent piece, Max.
> 3. I'm a little baffled by your description of the flat tax. You say "The
> flat tax need not be flat. Workers could be taxed under multiple,
> graduated rates, as under the personal income tax." I'm not quite sure I
> understand. How would this differ from a graduated income tax? And how
> could it be sold to anyone as a flat tax?
> Michael
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> There is no reason why either the worker, the
> firm, or both could not be taxed at graduated
> rates or different rates under a flat tax.
>
> mbs