I know that Karl Marx preferred the progressive income tax, so do I. That doesn't make me a Marxist or make Marx wrong about everything. Marx also advocated eating, sleeping and breathing. That does not make these necessary activities "communist". However, I do admit that our present progressive income tax has become polluted and needs to be cleaned out. But replaced? No! After sitting around with calculators and different tax schemes, those of us volunteers in Prop. 13, agreed that the progressive income tax was still the most fair and productive. It only was in need of drastic repair, not replacement.
The consumption and flat taxes that you advocate, are regressive and counterproductive to the economy and would only benefit government at the expense of the taxpayer.
How, pray tell, is it "fair" that a greater amount of my life (earnings) are taxed more than someone less productive than me. Oh, and did I mention that it was at the point of a gun? The government has absolutely ZERO BUSINESS knowing how much money I earn. What's so difficult to understand about this?
I simply do not believe that it is the government's business to redistribute wealth via the "progressive" income tax. It certainly was not an objective of the Founding Fathers. In any event, the following is another approach to consider:
AUTOMATED PAYMENT TRANSACTION (APT) TAX
Taxation technology for the 21st century
Dr. Edgar L. Feige, Professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the originator of the APT Tax concept, has just produced new estimates suggesting that a broad-based transaction tax as low as six tenths of one percent could replace the entire Federal and State 2005 budget revenue requirements of the United States of America.
The APT concept is elegant in its simplicity - potentially replacing the entire federal and state tax system - including income, corporate profits, excise and estate taxes - in favor of a tiny tax on all transactions. The tax would be automatically deducted from special taxpayer accounts, linked by software to all accounts at financial institutions capable of making final payments to the government seamlessly in real-time. The APT tax therefore eliminates the need for individuals and firms to file income and information tax returns. This is estimated to save citizens and the government roughly $200 billion per year in administration, enforcement, evasion and compliance costs, roughly seven times the amount currently being spent on homeland security.
The APT tax seeks to maximize the goals of both the government and the people - collecting necessary revenue with the lowest possible tax rate. The difference between the APT tax and our current income tax, as well as the proposed consumption taxes, is simplicity, progressivity, and breadth-the APT tax allows for significantly lower rates spread more equally throughout the world of economic activity. The APT is a transaction tax, and as such, taxes every single transaction that occurs in the economy including fund transfers between accounts and transactions involving the exchange of bonds, securities and foreign exchange. Because the wealthy conduct a disproportionate share of these financial transactions, the tax is highly progressive despite its flat rate. Progressivity is achieved through the skewness of tax base itself rather than through the progressive income tax rate structure of the current system. The very small tax is "sliced" off each side of every transaction as it moves electronically through banks and all other qualifying financial institutions. The tax collection is orderly and transparent, the rules are simple and universal and apolitical. The APT system eliminates the entire present tax code. No more exemptions, no more deductions, no more special interest loopholes and no more tax returns.
Feige's 2005 projections of total debits of $881 Tril., and total transactions of $832 Tril. (based on the most recent 2002 Bank for International Settlements data) update the figures he used in his original paper, published in Economic Policy in 2000. Taking the average of these two estimates ($856 Tril.), he conservatively assumes that the replacement of the current tax system with a revenue neutral APT tax will reduce total transactions by 50%. The projected potential APT tax base for 2005 would then be $428 Tril., permitting a revenue neutral flat tax of .57 percent on all transactions or .28 percent on each (buyer and seller) transactor to replace projected 2005 Federal and State tax revenues.
The tax rates required for a "revenue neutral" tax are divided into three phases which are the result of a suggested implementation plan that would gradually replace virtually all Federal and State taxes. The projected tax rates are calculated conservatively, assuming that only 50% of the potential 2005 APT tax base is available, since the volume of total transactions is expected to fall with the introduction of the APT tax. To the extent that transactions decline less than is assumed in the current calculations, an even lower tax rate would be able to raise the requisite revenues. As individuals and businesses use their new found economic freedom, transactions naturally grow over time, suggesting that future tax rates could be even lower.
Utilizing 50% of the projected APT tax base for 2005 of $856 Tril., that is, $428 Tril, the estimated tax rates required to raise the revenues projected for 2005 budgets are as follows:
Phase I (Eliminate all Federal taxes other than SS and Medicare)
Required revenue neutral target=$1.242 Tril:
Required tax rate = 0.29% per transaction or 0.15% per transactor.
Phase II (Eliminate all Federal taxes including Social Security and Medicare "payroll" taxes)
Required revenue neutral target = $2.036 Tril.
Required tax rate = 0.48 % per transaction or 0.24% per transactor.
Phase III (Eliminate all Federal taxes including Social Security and Medicare "payroll" taxes and all State personal income; corporate profits and sales taxes)
Required revenue neutral target = $2.436 Tril.
Required tax rate = 0.57% per transaction or 0.28% per transactor.
The estimates above are based on 2005 revenue and transaction projections. Implementing the three phases will require several years and careful government management, especially the third phase. However, Dr. Feige has built in a safeguard for the APT Tax by calculating the required tax rate based on only half of the transactions that are actually observed.
Examples: Assuming full implementation of Phase three:
1. $100 restaurant bill would have a tax to the customer estimated to be 28 cents and the restaurant would pay 28 cents.
2. $50,000 family income deposited and spent or moved to savings results in $100,000 of transactions paying a total tax of $280 distributed over all the individual transactions as they occurred through the year. These amounts would be doubled if businesses fully shifted their tax burden to the consumer, but nowhere near the $15,000 to $20,000 the family would pay under the current federal and state systems.
It is now important to begin the process of planning the economic, legal, technical and administrative requirements necessary for a smooth and transparent transition from the current tax system to an APT system. The proposed, new collection system will be tested by computer simulation to capture all potential errors and omissions (new job for the IRS). Then, it will take several years to rollout, especially Phase III involving central collection and distribution to the States. A national commitment to this revolutionary, fair, automatic and lowest cost tax system is needed NOW!
For more details, please visit www.apttax.com
William J Hermann, Jr. MD, Director APT Tax Project Contact: administrator@apttax.com , 713-932-3773
Isn't that a contradiction: "flat taxes ... are regressive" ??? They appear to be quite fair to me. Isn't the very definition of "flat tax" as being one that is neither progressive nor regressive?