Flat Tax Act of 2005

[A18]

Representative Michael Burgess introduced the "Freedom Flat Tax Act" this month, which would phase in a "flat" tax over three years, creating a single 19 percent rate the first two years and a permanent 17 percent rate thereafter.

The new code would have no deductions or loopholes, allowing only personal exemptions.

The current federal tax code is over 60,000 pages long.

The president's tax reform commission is not scheduled to report until later this year.

[John Dibble]

*thumbs up*

[WalterMitty]

i guess the men down at the yacht club are happy....doubtful many other people are too thrilled.

[Erc]

Unfortunately, this will get no support.

Sometimes you wish our politicians were corrupt and voted with their own self-interest in mind, don't you....

[phk]

We need spending decreases too, certainly isnt wise to invade a country and starve your money supply.

[A18]

i guess the men down at the yacht club are happy....doubtful many other people are too thrilled.

I'm happy.

It's unlikely that this specific proposal will pass, but it's a clear example of reform to look at.

It is absolutely essential that any kind of meaningful tax reform introduce complete inflation-neutrality, eliminate the AMT, and move towards simpliciy.

Secondary goals would be to end double taxation, abolish the capital gains tax, etc.

[David S]

i guess the men down at the yacht club are happy....doubtful many other people are too thrilled.

I'm happy.

It's unlikely that this specific proposal will pass, but it's a clear example of reform to look at.

It is absolutely essential that any kind of meaningful tax reform introduce complete inflation-neutrality, eliminate the AMT, and move towards simpliciy.

Secondary goals would be to end double taxation, abolish the capital gains tax, etc.

The good.
From what I can tell it looks like most people would pay less under this bill. The standard deduction is $25,580 for a couple filing jointly + $5,510 for each dependent. Many low income families would owe no taxes at all. It also works out as a saving in my own case both as a retiree with a modest income and with my previous income when I was employed. Wealthy people would undoubtedly save since the top rate is only 19% instead of 35% and also capital gains, interest and dividends do not appear to be taxed.

This is also a much simpler system, and its optional; meaning you can elect to use this system or the current one. But once you make that decision you have to stay with it permanently.

The bad
Because of the huge deduction many people would pay no tax. That pits the rich against the poor, the poor wanting government benefits at no cost, and the rich and middle class not wanting to fund those programs with their tax dollars. IMHO a fair tax would create equal agony for all citizens.

The ugly
Apparently everyone would save under this plan which means it is not revenue neutral. Since our federal government has shown absolutely no ability whatsoever to curb spending habits, the reduced revenues will simply increase the deficit. Without a balanced budget amendment those huge current deficits will get bigger yet, as will the national debt.


Overall I like the plan, because of its simplicity and lower taxes. Its a step in the right direction.

[TeePee4Prez]

I oppose this.

[A18]

This is also a much simpler system, and its optional;meaning you can elect to use this system or the current one. But once you make that decision you have to stay with it permanently.

That's the part I didn't like. People shouldn't be stuck paying the screwy tax just because of a stupid decision they made one year.

Having two alternate tax systems is a queer idea. We're all United States citizens; we should all be held to the same standard.