With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.



Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function progressive tax.


Walt wrote:
If you insist on being a purist, perhaps.


It's not so much being a purist, it's looking at the intent
vs the execution. Sure it's nice & simple, but it's
blatantly unfair to those making Y+1 dollars and does not
achive any degree of progressiveness in the upper 1%, upper
5%, etc income brackets. Considering that this is where the
money is, the one-step flat/progressive tax is arbitrarily
limiting revenue & depressing aggregate demand.

And besides, you just know that next year, it'll be two
steps, plus some loop holes. The year after, three or four
steps plus more loopholes. Pretty soon we're in the same mess.

A citizen should be able to calculate his own taxes, get the
correct answer with less than a full day's work on it, and
the form should be the size of a post card. And the tax
should be structured to maximize revenuse while minimizing
negative impact on the national economy.





I was referring to the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the
grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax
that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for
individuals.


Yep, seen that one. It's not a terrible idea.


The problem as I see it is that every time the rules of the game get
changed there's a lot of noise and smoke about how it's going to become
fairer, but in the end those who can afford to buy the politicians come
out ahead. Strange, eh?


Isn't it though? I think somebody should apply for a grant
to study this.





Many people seem to go along with the "taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%" axiom because they have the idea
that they'll be one of them someday. Commonly, this is referred to as
being a "sucker".


Or because the people telling them they should be in favor
of it are at the same time catering to other, less socially
acceptable prejudices.

DSK