The method of taxation is less relevant than the rate of taxation. Just what makes you think that a different method of taxation will reduce the load imposed by the tax?. The rate is the problem, the methodology of taxation is a secondary issue. The other consideration with a tax of a different feather is who pays, of course, this will generate the most discourse.
My only issue with it is that it would likely put thousands of CPA's out of a job, but it would also do away with the majority of the IRS.
So what's a few less CPA's?. However, the idea that the IRS will go away is basically ridiculous. Nothing less than wishful thinking.
I myself, am self-employed so the flat tax is very appealing. I currently set aside about 30% of what I make to meet my tax "obligations".
So again, what exactly is the problem?, the 30% set aside or it's method of imposition?.
---max
The founder's didn't think so
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
and for good reason, the base issues do not revolve about how much, but rather the intrusiveness and cost of complying with a given tax system:
From Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations (Book V, Chapter II), there are really only four things to be considered as guiding principles in designing an appropriate tax system -
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state . . . .
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person . . . .
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it . . . .
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state . . . ."
Unfortunately, any income tax fails on all four counts.
Furthermore in Wealth of Nations pp. 561-64. Here is what he had to say about bad taxes:
1. A tax was bad that required a large bureaucracy for administration.
2. A tax was bad that "may obstruct the industry of the people, and discouraged them form applying to certain branches which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so."
3. A tax was bad that encouraged evasion. "The law, contrary all the ordinary principals of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it. "Evasion is also bad, says Smith, because it tends to "put an end to the benefits which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals."
4. A tax is bad that put the people through "odious examinations of the tax-gatherers, and exposes them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression...It is in one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign"
Unfortunately income taxes pass the above criteria for a bad tax with flying colors.
Just what makes you think that a different method of taxation will reduce the load imposed by the tax?.
Going to a single rate, single stage, broad based Retail Sales Tax will reduce complexity to one rate, on all goods and services. The burden imposed by complexity, simply vanish.
Under the income/payroll tax system OTOH, complexity has a severe price tag we all pay:
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.