What is wrong with a 15% flat tax that everyone pays and with that you get rid of the IRS..........
What is wrong with a 15% flat tax that everyone pays
150yrs of experience with various forms of income tax including the very first one which was a flat tax for about 1 year.
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
15% would only replace the income tax but would not do anything to replace the 15.3% FICA taxes on wages.
A "flat tax" is still an income tax, with Congress more than willing to define what "taxable income" is.
and with that you get rid of the IRS
An income tax will always require an IRS to assure the income you declare is accurate. The only way to do that is by audit and government access to individual records and accounts.
"What is wrong with a 15% flat tax that everyone pays and with that you get rid of the IRS.........."
That is too involved a question for me to give you a complete answer in this forum. I will, however, try to give you a brief answer.
First of all, I assume that you are referring to the Armey-Forbes-Shelby Flat INCOME tax which has been proposed for some time. The fact that it is still an income tax means that you still tax people on what they contribute to the economy, rather than on what they take out (consume) from the economy. In addition, you perpetuate the notion that you can define the ever elusive term "taxable income" in a manner that is clear and fair. This flies in the face of roughly 90 years of recent US history. The bulk of the complexity in the tax code is NOT, I repeat NOT due to figuring out what rate to use. The complexity comes from the deductions and the Flat Tax makes minimal reductions there.
The Flat Tax would NOT get rid of the IRS or make a significant dent in the hundreds of billions of $$$ spent annually on compliance costs.
The Flat Tax, because it retains the corporate income tax and payroll taxes, also perpetuates a system in which we handicap our producers and make it difficult for them to compete, not only in foreign markets, but even in our own market. This is one of the major reasons that we have such an influx of imports into our country and an economy that can drive up the Dow but is sorely lacking in job creation.
How's that for a start? Here's a more thorough answer.
http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/confess.html This article was written by Dick Armey's former Chief of Staff who, like Mr. Armey is also a trained economist, and who is well versed in both proposals. His conclusion is that the Fair and Flat taxes are similar in many respects, but in every case where there is a difference, the FairTax comes out on top.
Also consider---there are millions of illegals in this country who do not file tax returns, there are those people who get their money by illegal means--who do not file tax returns---and of course there are people who cheat on their taxes----- the sales tax would be from a much broader base--virtually every single person in the country! And don't forget the enormous saving from shutting down the IRS--with their sky high operating budget.