Would a Flat Tax Be More Fair? | 5 Minute Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 гру 2016
- What would happen if there was just one tax rate for most Americans? Would that be fair? Could it even work? Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, explains.
Donate today to PragerU! l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: / prageru
Twitter: / prageru
Instagram: / prageru
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
The American Revolution started as a tax revolt - over a single tax on tea! Now look at us. It seems like everything we do is taxed.
The system behind these taxes is a bureaucratic monstrosity; a dead weight on the economy. And it erodes our trust in the government that's taxing us. If you have enough lawyers, lobbyists, and loopholes at your disposal maybe you can game the system. That's fine for big corporations and wealthy individuals, but what about the small business owner or the middle class taxpayer? He just has to shut up and pay up. Nothing better illustrates the disaster that our tax system has become than the mother of all taxes: the federal income tax code. This tax alone, with all its attendant rulings and interpretations, is estimated to be about 10 million words - and rising!
Several years ago, Money magazine took a hypothetical family's finances and gave the numbers to 46 tax preparers. Forty-six different estimates came back. In some cases those differences ran into the thousands of dollars of what the family owed. This from experts who are considered to be the best in the business. But the taxes themselves are only part of the cost of this toxic code. There's also the cost of compliance - the time, money and effort it takes Americans to prepare their taxes.
A George Mason University study puts the annual cost of compliance as high as $378 billion and the total annual economic cost (including work hours) at more than $600 billion. Again, these are annual costs - as in every year! That's a lot of money that could be used in more productive ways - creating new products, new services, new medical devices, new cures for diseases.
Clearly, the time has come to drive a stake through the heart of this tax monster. So, what should be done? Like most things, the best solution is the most simple: A single flat tax with no deductions, except for a deduction for each adult and for each child. Fill out a sheet of paper or key in a few numbers on your computer, and you're done. This one change would not only make every citizen's life easier, it would also transform government, our economy, and our society by ending the complexity that gives bureaucrats and politicians so much power. They have power because they're the ones who dole out the tax favors.
It wasn't always this way. There was a time when corporations primarily lobbied Washington to keep government out of their businesses. That has changed. In the words of The Atlantic, “The evolution of business lobbying from a sparse reactive force into a ubiquitous and increasingly proactive one is among the most important transformations in American politics over the last 40 years.”
This favor-seeking is centered on getting special treatment and tax breaks. A flat tax will help us begin to scale back that special interest-loving, crony-capitalist big government that we all complain about. Everyone would pay less - not only in taxes, but also in compliance. Investment and job creation would skyrocket. We'd experience a recovery that would grow the tax base and - irony of ironies - ultimately generate more revenue for government. I go into this in much greater detail in my book, Reviving America, but here, in essence, is how it works.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/videos/case-f...
The tax code seems unnecessarily complex, making it difficult to identify the most tax-efficient strategies for my income and investments. Are there resources available to help me understand relevant deductions and credits that could maximize my after-tax returns?
You're right, the code can be a beast. There are resources available to help you understand deductions and credits. The IRS website has a wealth of information, but for a more personalized approach, consider consulting with a tax advisor who specializes in investments. They can help you identify strategies that maximize your after-tax returns.
The market is unstable at the moment, but if you do the right math, you should be just fine. Strategists have been aiding folks in recording gains over 250k just in a matter of months, so I think there are alot of wealth transfer in this downtime if you have someone who knows where to look like i do.
One of my plans is to employ the service of an asset-manager this year. I've seen some off social media but wasn't able to get a response. Could you recommend one?
Don't be hesitant to contact Sonya Lee Mitchell and follow her directions.
I searched her full name online and found her webpage. I emailed to make an appointment to talk with her; hopefully, she gets back to me.
A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity.
@Lisa B the bigger the government, the more responsibility it takes, the more responsibility it has, the more money it requires to pay for all the services...so the only solution is small government and smaller corporation...government should play the role of middle man / referee...big government and big corporation is like Ancient Egypt or Babylon enslaving its own ppl...
AMEN!!!!
It can buy itself into prosperity by giving Israel a cool 100 billion in aid each year rofl.
Not for long anyways.... cough* *China* cough* cough*
Nope just look at canada
This is pure common sense. No wonder it hasn't been implemented.
One day maybe.
It has been, in Eastern Europe, worked too well and then the IMF came in and forced these countries to give it up.
Rand paul
You think trump can implement a flat tax?
Flat tax @ 10% across the board. Welfare is based on prior income, mandatory drug test & time restrictions based on prior work record. No previous work...no welfare. Public housing comes with proof of employment. Representatives must live in district & pay is average of district. Government aid counts as negative earnings calculated into average. Reduce military presence to N. America only, cut-off all foreign aid, enforce immigration laws already on the books. Any state declaring sanctuary immediately forfeits all government funding...colleges who practice sedation...all funding removed & board members sent for due process. Ahhhhh, wouldn't it be nice...
@@OldMockingbird I wonder what formula they used to decide 52,800 as the amount a "family of four" gets tax free.
They make the taxes so complicated so no one realizes how much they're being shafted.
NO... we realize we are being shafted. We just do not have the energy to figure out how NOT to get shafted. 10,000,000 words. That is longer than Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...
@@Golfnut_2099We have been shafted so bad we don't even know it. The federal govt doesn't use taxes to fund anything, HOW can it? Unless there is someone in the economy with a money printer which would be illegal counterfeiting. The truth is the Fed govt spends FIRST then it taxes and borrows and when you realize that, then you realize your taxes do not fund the federal govt, instead it is the Federal govt that funds us with the USD's we need and use to pay our taxes with.
They make taxes complicated because dumbing it down makes it open to exploitation.
@@artypyrec4186 Hmmm... Actually, making it complicated makes it harder for the common Joe to exploit the system. Rich people have accountants for that...
@@Golfnut_2099 a person who went to school for years to understand how to bend it to their whims. What do you think would happen if they made it simpler, that those accountants would just give up?
I say we jump onto ships and throw chests of tea off of ships again.
#BostonTeaParty2019
And by throw tea off of ships you mean throw politicians right?
@@justdewit hecc yea let's dew it
Instead of chests of tea, why don't we just throw the politicians into the water?
AgentBubbles if it’s coffee can I keep it?
Don't take your disatisfaction with your government out on the environment, keep our oceans clean.
This is NOT an argument for a Flat Tax!
My only, and really big problem with the video, that it is not an argument for flat tax. Flat income tax is, when EVERYONE pays an equal percentage of their income. (Like we have in Hungary.(15%))
In this video Steve Forbes argues for a tax system with 2 brackets. One above $52800 annual income (17%), and one below it (0%). That's a progressive income tax system by definition.
This video is actually an argument for the simplification of the tax code, and not for the flat tax. As in the last few minutes Steve Forbes admits, that the simplification can be achieved by a progressive income tax system, like one he proposed.
Calling this video ''The Case for a Flat Tax'' is wrong, because people might use these arguments to defend the flat tax. Most importantly the video admits to the principle of progressive taxation, that poor people should pay a smaller portion of their income than rich people.
If you want to defend the flat tax you have to argue, that EVERYONE (including poor people and the very rich) should pay the same percentage of their income.
Util this happens PragerU should rename this video: The Case for simplifying the Tax Code. I know that, it isn't as catchy, but at least i would be accurate.
I know that, it isn't as catchy, but at least i would be accurate.
then you also know why they will never change it
Yeah, probably. And it pisses me of. I usually don't care about bad arguments (as in most PragerU videos), but when they deliberately mislead their audience, and they know it, that's infuriating.
PregerU might as well be a mouth piece for Neoliberalism and Libertarian thought.
György Nemes Accurate and beautifully written.
It's a flat tax that is incentivizing people to have children, really. There is only 1 rate and 1 deduction based off of how many people depend on you.
If you're just one person, I assume the deduction you'd get is around $16k or so.
10%. No exceptions. No loopholes.
20%: 10% for local, 10% for national. That way both will prosper.
10% total. Feds, states, and locals can split it.
Notorious N I’m actually fairly ok with that. I’d prefer 18% split two ways, but I’d settle for 20%.
@@ab5olut3zero95 Would it get rid of State Sales Taxes... Probably not. Hell, Washington voters have voted for $30 car tabs NUMEROUS times. I think I paid $160 this year!
You are a genius. 🔥
I took tax law in Denmark a few years ago, and I was infuriated at how big our tax code was 750 pages. The book that contains our entire tax code is quite heavy, and my two semesters only managed to get though the basics, not the intricate details of the hundred of paragraphs in the dozens of laws. But it is nice to know that all things considered our tax code is still rather small.
I've been thinking about this for years... 10% tax across the board.
And 10 for the big guy
I support this. Everyone has equal responsibility. Noone evades taxes. That's called a fair share
Yes
Absolutely
Yes and there's no outs. You pay 10% to the feds and 5% to state. No tax deductible donations. No outs of any kind. You make 100p you pay 150 you make 1 million you pay 150k. Period.
My conservative side says this is the best way to tax people.
My libertarian side says all taxation is theft no matter how much
I am with you on that. Taxation is left but I do feel I should chip in to help, In fact I really wouldn't mind as long as it was fair. I think there is merit to the idea taxes are the price we pay for living in a society, but why do I have pay so much more then many others who don't work nearly as hard as I do or did the work to get the skills to make a good living. Seems like the more you do the more they want from you.
I don't think that libertarians would agree that all tax is theft. Libertarians generally agree that there are Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and these functions must be funded. To do otherwise is anarchy, not libertarianism. All libertarians I know agree that the government is doing things it should not be doing and in the process is stripping all of us of basic freedoms.
I'd say ease it in with the flat tax, it would be catastrophic if we just completely dropped income tax in one day. Not to mention we have a huge debt we have to pay thanks to the liberals not knowing how to money works. But yes I agree I'm a perfect world, there should be no income tax at all.
Emperor Alvis if there's NO taxes, then say goodbye to all government run things... no public schools. No libraries. No president. No mayors. No court houses. No policemen
I think most of us believe in most of the services that taxes provide. However, many here do not believe that revenues are being spent wisely. Personally, I see no reason for public schools and private schools and the options they will offer are superior. That said we all agree that an educated population is a good thing so taxes can be used to fund schools, but revenues can be applied to private, competing schools. This is where the great divide occurs. Some of us believe that public schools are inefficient and do not provide a high quality service. It is not because of lack of money it is because they have become so political and administration-heavy. Coincidentally, Laura Hollis sums this feeling up in an opinion piece: www.jewishworldreview.com/0818/hollis080218.php3.
"All government run things" is not necessarily a good thing. Some government-run things are failing and are very expensive. Some of us believe that change is needed to either get rid of the non-essential or to privatize what would better be run in the private sector. Or, perhaps, some services should leave the federal government and move down into more local control at the state, country and municipal level. There are several federal departments that have no justification starting with the federal department of education.
No one should ever have to give more than 10% of their income to the Federal Government, but EVERYONE should have to pay 10%. 17% is too high!
The us was at it most prosperous in the 40s, 50s, and 60,. Highest tax rate; over 70%
@@anthonywatts2033 50's and 60's, yes. In 1950, the top tax rate was 42%. It grew every year to a high of about 70%. But, the 70% tax rate didn't take full effect until the 70's, and it tanked the economy.
I keep hearing liberals and progressives cry and wail that "the rich" need to pay their fair share, yet the top 10% of earners pay 50% of all taxes - and the top 50% of earners pay 95% of all taxes. Sounds to me like the bottom 50% is not paying their fair share!
Disagree that it took " to the 70s" to take effect. The oil crisis tanked the economy then and if the top 10% own 90% of the countries wealth but only pay 50% of taxes, you have confirmed the problem.
@@anthonywatts2033 In the 1950s the highest tax rate possible was 91 percent, do you honestly believe anyone in their right mind paid that? Most of the 1 percent back then only paid around 42% of their income, a little less than today. Yet despite that, the 1950s was arguably one of if not the best times to be alive economically in US history.
Michael Jones the term fair share doesn’t refer to how much of our countries taxes are paid by which group. It refers to how much of someone’s income goes to paying taxes. The more money you make, the more you can afford. That means you can afford the taxes you pay on income, property, gas, road etc.. The less fortunate have to pay a lot more of their income towards taxes. That’s what the term fair share means.
We should ALL pay the same flat tax percentage the rich and the poor period. Different amounts but the same percentage. If we all share the same liberties and freedoms of this country we should all bear the same responsibility.
Cisco RamRod we don’t all share the same, rich people are significantly more advantaged because they have best education, healthcare, political influence, etc
@@JohnDoe-jq4re same liberties.
@@markgilrosales6366 You'll magically see rich leave and jobs disappear
What people don't understand rich people don't magically become rich they are human just like us
I agree with this
MERRY CHRISTMAS AMERICA!!!!
With love, from Italy
Just A Man
Merry Christmas to you, friend!
Hope the best for my European brethren. Stay safe!
10% flat tax is more than enough...
and cut a lot of wasteful government spending
Also, it's not a flat tax if you exempt people under a certain limit. It's funny that they complain about how two levels will turn into 7 and then they create two levels. 10% across the board.
Meanwhile in Sweden most succesful people pay 40-50%
20%: 10% for local, 10% for national.
@@samdoubleview7628 define successful. For instance in Denmark $60k/yr gets taxed at 40%
Post this again, this was done 4 years ago and not enough people have heard of it, it’s time to push harder
Here in Australia income tax was introduced in 1916 in the middle of the First World War as a 'temporary wartime measure'. No prizes for guessing it was never repealed and 104 years later it is the most important pillar of the tax system.
I like the idea of a flat tax, but 17% is TOO DAMN HIGH.
And also, the poor should not be exempt. The cut off point for exemption at the low end should not be the "poverty line" (which is an arbitrary, always changing amount based on individual needs), but on the point of diminishing returns for the government, that is to say, if it costs more to collect the tax than the amount collected, don't bother (which is what they do anyway, they just say it's a break for the poor in order to sound altruistic).
Visda58 i was thinkn more like 10
The rich should pay 0%
The upper middle class should pay 0%
The middle class should pay 0%
The lower middle class should pay 0%
The bottom 20% should pay 0%
And the poor should pay 0%
Sounds fair to me.
@@emperoralvis6559 based Ron Paul moment
Is 15% fine?
We said no taxation without representation. it wasn't until King George tried to seize our firearms that we finally declared independence.
And they know what would happen if they tried the big steal again.
I am so glad I found PragerU. I have always been a fan of the idea of a flat tax rate. A few years ago, I finally "got" the concept of the standard deduction. Now, your deduction for each adult and child finishes the package! ThankU so much!
I have recently looked more into tax reform as I have jumped into a higher tax bracket. I agree with the flat rate and always wondering (even when I had limited knowledge of this) why do people pay different rates ….. that's highly unfair.
Wasn't the Boston Tea Party a revolt of several taxes, not just the one on sugar and tea?
0MikematicOnUTube0 Well, the prime reason for dumping British tea was because of the tax, but it was caused by pent up anger from all the other taxes too
Yeah, that was just the "last straw".
RAND ST.GERMAINE Basically
Tea.
The prime reason was that the people in the colonies had to pay taxes to the government in London, but weren't represented in the parliament.
And when you advocate for this as a presidential candidate, you end up getting smeared by both sides of the aisle.
NamelessHere Forevermore because its real change. you can only run on wanting real change, and once elected keeping the system standing.
17% is still too high. Cut back on dysfunctional social programs.
I am not disagreeing with you, but can you reference of few of the programs you mean?
All federal social programs. All federal welfare. If States want those, they can build em. I defy anyone to show me where the Constitution allows FedGov to have those programs.
It makes sense. The government is 17% of gdp so.... it matches. Maybe set the rate to government gdp % so it gradually decreases as govt shrinks
Cut back the flat tax and raise sales tax. Sales tax would be the most fair tax because those who spend a lot will contribute a lot, i.e. the 1%.
@@ab5olut3zero95 so the US shouldn't had bought the lousiana purchase from france because the constitution didn't say to buy land from other country?
0% seems pretty flat
But it also doesn't work. How will we get national defence? That is a legitimate government function. Police force? How will the government do anything with no money. We'll start with a percentage and work from there.
He is obviously kidding. Although there are private police forces and private militias, we still need to pay for courts and elected officials.
William brought up a great point. Taxes have been demonized as horrible atrocities by the far right, but taxes are not inherently bad. One thing you need to think of is that when you cut taxes is this:
What were those taxes paying for, and what will we lose as a result?
Privatize it all. Our country is strong due to a war behind every door not our military.
@@damiancajero2243 lining politicians pockets and checking the boxes of bureaucracy. The government is not efficient at allocating funds.
It would make figuring personal taxes out a lot easier. Fair or not, a flat tax would demand the Government *_Keep a balanced budget._* Otherwise it's a futile exercise
Odee Dillon oh they would just keepin
Odee Dillon oh they would just keep on raising the rate. Even beyond 100 percent. Not like they are short on stupid people
Odee Dillon won t happen
Evoking our family motto of; _Dum Spiro, Spero! _*_With Each Breath, I Have Hope!_*
It is good to have _hope._ For without, we have nothing left but _dispair._
Do you know what would make figuring out personal taxes even easier? -> Not figuring them out in the first place. Hear me out... I haven't read Mr. Steve Forbes' book, and I'm no tax expert. but from what I can tell, going with his plan for a flat 17% could quite possibly increase, not reduce, the amount of taxes the average citizen pays. He says that individuals AND corporations will pay 17% each; well, take 7 minutes out of your day and watch this video "Milton Friedman - The Free Lunch Myth" (ua-cam.com/video/YmqoCHR14n8/v-deo.html) and you'll see how it will actually be the individual who ends up paying both of the 17% taxes (and that's not including sales or property taxes [which he didn’t mention in the video]). So, here’s the point of my post: I propose we eliminate every tax there is, and instigate ONLY a flat 10% tax on sales. Just think about that for a moment. Think of all the awesome things you could go and buy or invest in if a large portion of your paycheck wasn't already robbed before you got it in your hands. As far as I can tell, a flat tax on sales is the only way to implement a fair tax, for everyone, of every class, all across the board. People would only contribute to the degree in which they consume, nothing more; a simple, 10% sales tax on the things they buy. But wait, there’s more. Under this structure, those who are currently not contributing to the system (illegal aliens to name a few) would actually end up paying the same amount of taxes as everyone else. I would love to discuss more on this idea, but I think I’ve said all that I’ll be able to say in a youtube comment (assuming anyone is reading this in the first place). God bless.
How about my plan, it's called "No Income Tax whatsoever"? It creates more pathology than you can imagine.
"It's time for another Tax Revolution."
Have been a fan of this since you first proposed it when you ran for office. I can see why the democrats and even some of the republicans hate this. If you dry up their revenue stream they would lose their power.
17% flat tax rate would be wonderful! The trick would be keeping politicians from ratcheting it up over time.
Aka impossible. Smash the state into a million pieces.
That's why the fair tax is better.
the "fair" tax is better for lazy people who sit on welfare. I pay almost 40% in taxes and am considered "middle class" while my take away income is less than that of a leech that works part time under the table, gets foodstamps and subsidized housing and free healthcare, paid by me.
If we assume all Americans' taxable income is $14 trillion, a 17% flat tax rate would give the government $4.147 trillion each year. (when other taxes are added) The government spent $4.147 trillion in 2017, so it fits. But if they wanted to get more in income tax revenue than they spend, then a 30% flat tax rate would give the government $4.2 in income tax revenue alone.
Yukon Jack it would quickly approach 100 percent or better
"The problem with other people's money is that you eventually run out of socialism."
- Margaret Thatcher
Otto the Smartass , Close Otto, very close!!!
This is pretty funny
Its actually true. Eventually people use their money to put on the hockey mask and get rid of socialism.
Lolz
Yeah but Real® Socialism® hasn't been tried
The last few years I’ve had ambition to start a business and grow it. I’ve always get hung up on contemplating taxes... my thoughts for a solution was a flat tax. That way I would have incentive to grow my business with out being penalized for being productive. After watching this, I realize it was my thoughts being presented through this PragerU video 👏🏽👏🏽
..
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
Why would taking home slightly less profit be a disincentivizing factor for you? You’d still be making money.
@@ornerybeefalo8387 because, it’s stealing. The person or household who earns the wealth should have the liberty to decide where the spend their earnings, and “taking” a higher percentage from people who work more, earn more, or produce more is straight up theft. Wealth is private property and the government is not entitled to citizens private property. There is no incentive for people to be more industrious if the government is going to steal more of that.
@@farmerpete0768 nice soliloquy, that didn’t answer my question. Why would taking home slightly less more money be a disincentive?
@@ornerybeefalo8387 If you work longer or harder and take home less, what is the point of working extra? Say You work for a company, they want you to work an extra 10 hrs this week for overtime but they say they will donate the money you earned to another entity. Where is your incentive to work and take home slightly less?
2:36 - "It wasn't always this way" oh boy, that's for sure, there was no fed tax prior to 1913, when Congress signed it into law!... Looks like we hatch into England anyway.
If you're going to comment, at least get facts straight. It was not just an act of Congress. Congress got the ball rolling, but states had to ratify the amendment proposal, and clearly enough states agreed that the United States needed to start levying an income tax. I agree that we need a flat income tax to clean up the red tape and other messes, but let's not pretend that Congress was "up to no good behind the shadows" when, in reality, everyone knew it had to be done.
To be fair, we had our own overseas Empire to rule.
Excellent Steve. For 150 years the tax was 7% and it came from import/export. It served as a safety net, covered schools, etc... everything.
Stupid Storm - And the US was the richest country per capita back then alongside gun-loving libertarian Switzerland
Aren't "no tax" and 17% two rates...?
definitely.
Should be 0% and 0%
Lol
+Emperor Alvis then enjoy mafia style ruling. No courts to help you out buddy. Society won't be able to function either since everyone's probably constantly at war.
@@emperoralvis6559 so who are you going to call when your family gets kidnapped or when your house is on fire or when your country is being invaded by terrorism or when your roads and bridges are damaged because of no upkeep?
Amend the constitution and establish:
-Flat tax
-No deficit
This makes the whole country united. We all pay the same proportion of our income to keep the government running. We want some new government program? ALL of our taxes are raised. And no deficit. We spend within our limit and we don’t inherit a previous generation’s overspending, nor do we leave future generations with our debt.
"we should create a flat tax because when you have two different brackets, they multiply and turn into the 7 we have today" ---Creates two brackets by exempting certain income levels...
Good point. A flat tax rate incentivizes making more money. I also think we should abolish tariffs so we would have to be the most economically free country in order to be competitive. Businesses should not pay taxes; just tax the people in the business. We should stop taxing property, and only tax income.
That's the moment I stopped watching the video!
A sales-tax IS a flat tax, but Prager U doesn't want that.
I inferred not a 0% bracket but that family would be pay no tax because of their personal exemptions for the couple and two children. That said, I haven’t read Forbes’ book so you could be right.
It all sounds good but even the poorest earners should pay a tax. if they made every single person who earned income pay a tax we can lower the percentage of the tax. We could probably drop it from 17% to 10% and 10% of any amount of wages is fair enough. If everybody has skin in the game they start thinking more logically about how their money is spent.
There's more to it than you may realize. Please consider reading the materials I linked in a previous comment. You might be surprised to find out just what the Founders intended, as far as taxation is concerned...
Agree with Brandon. Either way, the current system we have now is awful and punishes success
I believe your estimation to be way off, including the 17% from the lowest earners might allow a 1% overall decrease, but probably less. No way would it drop to 10%.
@A E equality of outcome - this is what liberals are preaching. This is also what will eventually make the "American dream" of being payed according to the abilities a past.
Dumbest thing I have ever heard. The problem is that if you take 20k from a rich person, he can’t afford luxuries, and if you take 10k from a poor person, he can’t afford necessities. Also poor people don’t save as much meaning if they had more money, they would spend it, increasing the marginal propensity to consume, increasing wages across the economy because the money circulates, rather than sitting in a bank account and not paying wages.
I'm all for a simpler tax code; but there wasn't much of an argument in favor of eliminating tax brackets.
Besides the part about the ridiculous complexity and high operating costs of the current bracket system?
***** Yeah. You could create an entire National tax code in just a few pages, with brackets and everything. He seems to think that it's impossible to just write simple legislature, when his own purposed alternative is just as subvertable as a bracket system.
Flat taxes don't punish people for wanting to become wealthy Americans. Furthermore it doesn't create a system that favours creating amendments to let certain people escape being taxed.
The brackets are unfair, because the rich pay more than their fair share. It's all about wealth redistribution onto EBT cards.
TheSquidPro But we only tax what you make OVER the tax bracket, so you'll never actually lose money from going up a bracket. You'll just get taxed more, since you can afford to pay more.
Not only fair, but necessary. Everyone needs to know just how much they pay in taxes. If they have to cut the government a check every year, people would be a lot more careful with how they vote.
Boy do I hate taxes, I say this as someone who pays it but is also a beneficiary of it as a student on federal student aid. I understand the complexity of the system and know that primary reason why I have to go to government to get help with my tuition is because colleges drove up prices because they know government would help, the very sad irony. Knowing this and get the help I do, I still complain, fairly of course. The summer before my first semester I got a factory job which allowed unlimited number of hours to work at. I had nothing to do and needed to money for college so I said what the heck. I worked 56 hours my first week, when I got my first check I saw that 25% of my hard earned money went to taxes, that's alot. Boy do I hate taxes
OverLordthe 1st What's the problem?
You start recognising depending on public money then complain you are expected to pay your share.. Snowflake..?
By the way, in my region of the world taxes are around 40-70% + sale taxes 20 - 25%.
Free health care & education with subvention no matter age or study..
No ones dreaming of revolution, except some left over communist who no one cares about
ArrigAutist lol guy, he addressed that he was a beneficiary, he's saying it would be fine to not have financial aid, if we had a better tax plan.
ArrigAutist Donald chump
Because the government , pushed up your university owners cost
In Brazil the government implemented a program of scholarships (partial or total) to fund students in private colleges/universities. It helped a lot of students but also inflated prices. Tuition skyrocket. Now it's impossible to pay, for example, for a course of medicine (MD) unless you fit the social categories (very poor) or are super rich, middle class is out of the game.
Rand Paul had the closest tax plan to this video's. Too bad he isn't the president elect.
*****
only decent candidate out of the lot imo
I liked Ted Cruz, too. And the Fair Tax Act is my tax of choice.
Horror Versions I personally did not like Ted Cruz. especially after his campaign sent voting grades to Iowans. he also says he is a liberty candidate but he votes with the party and is a warmonger. rand votes for the Constitution and is non interventionist. Cruz's was a 10℅ flat tax while Rands was a 14.5℅ which is closer to the one in the video. Rand was a much better choice than Cruz.
literalcringe
Yeah, I just meant when it was down to the 4 Republicans left. I didn't get too involved until that point.
Cruz would have been way, way better than what we got.
this isnt a flat tax.. this is a tax bracket proposal. having 0% under 52k is a bracket and 17% over 52k is bracket 2. jesus.
You can look at it that way, but not even the best lawyer tells me that Google, or Amazon earns less that 50k year
52k is only for 2+2 family. Its flat with only deductions for adult/child.
It’s not a bracket, that implies there are multiples over 2 options. Google it.
This proposal is simply “above $$ pay taxes, below $$ no taxes.”
Beyond that your argument is over semantics. You don’t like that the new system would replace “brackets”… just find a more suitable word.
What about the deductions? He said four people, thus there are theoretically four deductions handling 25% of the rate each if split equally. That means as soon as they earn a dollar more they get taxed due to no longer having a net zero tax rate, it is mathematics.
The problem with a flat tax is the government can't be trusted to keep it flat.
I'm for a national sales tax, and a complete elimination of Income taxes. You're income should be private information.
Make America rich again
Xftbllplyr - Don’t be jealous
I agree, but why 17%? Why not 10%?
Gary Ricker yeeez stop it i get 40k in a year after tax i have 30k
The lower the better, but baby steps have to be made first. 👍
Eventually I’d like to get to a stage where personal income isn’t taxed at all and we just have a consumption tax (Libertarian Party policy) instead.
@@WeAreWafc the only problem without taxes is we need it for roads and schools.
Dylan Monnier - I’d be willing to pay a voluntary donation in order for specific things like roads to be built. Wouldn’t you?
As for schools, we should move to a voucher system of education where everyone gets a voucher worth X amount to spend on school fees. This will especially help middle class parents who currently struggle to afford private school fees.
@@WeAreWafc I personally would, but there's plenty of people who don't. And because they don't have to, they won't.
Another type of "taxation without representation" is all the added taxes when you take off and land at an airport hub on the way to a final destination, or the excessive taxes on motel rooms, or restaurants that they impose on visitors that spend a couple days in a tourist area. They could not vote on it, so why tax them? Because they have no choice but to pay up. Most of the time you don't even know how much the taxes are until you get there.
Wtf? No! Why would anyone be inclined to work harder than $52.8k/ year?
If 10% is good enough for the Lord, the government can work with way less. But EVERYONE would pay it
LOL, 10% is not what the lord is asking, he doesn't need the money....its his greedy salesmen who figured to use his name to get rich. Go home with your pastor, the lamb of god, and see what house he lives in.
@@TIB1973 10% is in the Bible so...
@@ZeusAndKiller which is man made, translated several times, each generation adding their own version, we have 22 different versions of this man made book because when enough people believe something should be different they create a new one to peddle their brainwashing on to their children...... The original teachings that Jesus followed and taught were 33 pages long....the rest is each generation adding their control.
@@ZeusAndKiller also,tithing was added to the Bible in 567.....567 years after the death of Jesus....
Same thought I had; God works miracles even at 10%. Ah, dang that Caesar!
A flat sales tax with no exemptions would be better.
TickedOff Priest better for the rich or better for the middle class?
Would disproportionately hit the poor, since more of their income goes into consumption. You would need another tax rate for necessities like groceries, housing, clothes, books etc, creating more complexity and deviating from the 1-tax-fits-all mantra. Your proposal would basically defeat itself if the government were to implement it.
Then no one would shop for things other than food, clothing, and shelter.
CatholicTraditional Exactly, why would anyone ever buy a car or tv set when the tax is 5% higher? /sarcarsm
Check out the FairTax. You'll see that makes even better sense. Everyone pays. The rich, the illegal alien, the drug dealer, the doctor. And you control how much tax you pay by controlling your spending.
No income tax is justifiable, instead the only fair tax is a consumption tax. You pay taxes only when you spend money, and items considered basic (i.e. WIC items) wouldn't be taxed, and items like vices and luxuries (i.e. Alcohol, tobacco, and high-end consumer goods) can be taxed at a higher rate. Money you save isn't taxed, only that which you spend. It would encourage saving and thriftiness in those who have limited means.
Bryan C watch prices skyrocket
Bryan C There goes the auto and housing industry. Or exempt this and that. Back to where we were.
Bryan C I love the idea, but in application doesn't seem as practical as a flat income tax
Bryan C You realize that the rich can keep their wealth forever by investing it and living off the returns and passing it down? Not justifiable for who? It is not justifiable for the middle class or the rich?
+Tanner Smith Under the Fair Tax, capital gains are taxed as well because they are goods and services that are bought and sold at the end user level.
What's wrong with letting the rich keep the money that they rightfully earned?
You do realize that when a billionaire invests money in something, that the money is paid to employees who work for the corporation, right?
I completely understand how annoying declare incomes and another fiscal obligations (I'm accountant in my country, Brazil) the time that we could use doing something really useful for our client like financial planning, tax planning etc, we are expending paying tax to a government that doesn't knows how to apply the taxes
Recommend reading a paragraph about the Laffer Curve, it's a very interesting concept that many forget about nowadays
Is the Laffer Curve Too Simple a Theory?
There are some fundamental problems with the Laffer Curve - notably that it is far too simplistic in its assumptions. First, that the optimal tax revenue maximizing tax rate T* is unique and static, or at least stable. Second that the shape of the Laffer Curve, at least in the vicinity of the current tax rate and T* is known or even knowable to policy makers. Lastly, that maximizing or even increasing tax revenue is a desirable policy goal.
Or....we could abolish federal income taxes...
The unfortunate reality is that not one red scent of the personal income tax goes to the operational costs of the government. It simply pays the interest to the federal reserve for the money they print for us. This explains why someone who is not married & has 6 children receives over $11000 back on an income tax return after paying no income tax at all. Most Americans pay very little if any income tax when the refund is factored in. So what is the point exactly? Other than controlling the populous, there isn't much of one. That & keeping the citizens at odds with each other. It's a very sinister & corrupt system in my opinion, but by all means please keep fighting amongst yourselves so that nothing actually gets resolved.
Wow the stupidity in these comments hurts my head.
But wouldn't eliminating the income tax for the poor motivate people to stay earning less than 52.00 a year?Stimulating then not to grow? while taxing them as well would do the exact opposite?
Mr. Grievous Arcantos12 Maybe it will incentivise Americans to do jobs normally done by illegal immigrants.
Asher Raza tax in 17% the poor as well, like everyone, taxing the same flat levels as everyone should encorage them to increase thei gains, so they would keep more money, or reduce this amount to 15%, this shiuld still be low enough and reasonably flat so they would have a reason to increase their livings
Some will but those are the so desperate not to pay the tax that they won't strive to earn money so they won't get the luxuries you could have later however there would be a limbo where it is better to stay down but if you hold a good job ( which there will be some more soon) then once you pass that limbo and make more money you won't have more taken from you except for a % so you will always earn more and thus have the capability to buy luxuries people would want
Yes, that IS how it works now, and I assume would continue in the flat tax plan
***** Ohhh, now it makes sense, really this makes much more sense actually, i thought you would get taxes 17% on 55k, my bad, so this proposal is much better now
Another thing I hate are credit scores since these size up every individual against each other based on what we manage to borrow and pay rather than solely looking at the individual’s financial history of paying up alone.
Credit scores are made entirely by private orgs, they are not a consequence of government. The only way to get rid of them is too add more regulation. Which I do support, but I think it highlights the inconsistency and economic illiteracy common in conservative arguments.
@@rico_1617 Wrong. Credit scores are the result of the fiat currency system and monetary policy. We are forced to invest or our money loses value due to inflation caused by the federal reserve and the fact that money is unmoored from reality. No inconsistency, you're just looking at too small of a window.
@@rico_1617 Regulations made by big government always favor the lobbyists. Have you never heard of regulatory capture? People are self-interested. Government is not a noble enterprise, especially when power is centralized over a large jurisdiction, which makes it very hard to rein in in any meaningful way.
I pay almost double that here in Canada. That's not even including sales tax, carbon tax ect.
I support the Fair Tax (federal sales tax) instead of income tax. Yes, I realize we would have to do away with the 16th amendment, otherwise we'd surely end up with an income AND sales tax, but I think it would be worth it.
1. Conceptually speaking, income tax inherently punishes people trying to better themselves, while the fair tax punishes everyone much more equally.
2. There is an innumerable amount of people who do not pay taxes. Drug dealers, illegal aliens, "under the table" workers, and various other criminals. Under the Fair Tax, these people cannot avoid paying taxes.
3. Who knows how many billionaires and multi-millionaires that don't work, because they don't have to? They have no income, so they pay no taxes. Under the Fair Tax, these super rich people would be paying a lot in taxes.
4. The Fair Tax includes a rebate for families near the poverty line.
5. Basic food items are not taxed anywhere close to luxury items.
6. It would be much harder for people to avoid paying taxes.
7. All the complications of filing income tax would be gone.
8. It's time we gave a little more power to the people. YOU decide how much tax you pay, and only YOU know how much money you make.
For those reasons alone, I support the Fair Tax. With the Fair Tax, EVERYONE pays taxes, not just honest people legally employed.
eliminate these burdensom social programs which hinder society neither sales tax or income tax are necessary
and if you make uneven amounts of income each year such as a small business with progressive tax it can become a nightmare to figure out what percent to set aside but with a flat tax you can just set aside a set percentage of every paycheck minus deductions
There's a video on UA-cam Somewhere of Vice President Pence supporting the fair tax many years ago. It really is a great plan.
@Notus Notus it's not just rich people who get inheritance.
@Notus Notus just because people can be greedy doesn't mean the government has the right to take money from a family.
Flat tax is fair. Why should someone who's wealthy have to pay a higher percentage? That's completely unfair. How can people not see that?
Turd Ferg probably because they’ve got more money
Ryan Antell I don't think you understand how percentages work.
Poor are greedy.
Dave Kohler oh yes they’re so greedy, nothing like the millionaires and hedge fund managers, who willingly pay the taxes they’re entitled to pay. Not like they’re stashing there money in tax havens or looking for loop holes. Not greedy at all.
robert long the bare minimum required to survive is the same for all, the rich have vast excesses of this, so rightfully they should have to pay a higher percent of taxes on their money as they’ve got more of it than they need.
K everyone throw things into the harbor to protest for this
Politicians raise taxes because they don’t want to combat irresponsible spending and corruption.
5% not 17% is more than enough.
Less government the better.
Baby steps 😁
The only problem is there are a couple of things that government actually does need to provide, like national defense. We'll see how it plays out with 17%, and move from there.
I'd like to see a comparison of the Flat tax to the Fair tax. I see pros and cons for each.
The problem with the fair tax is the definition of fair is to subjective
I would prefer we go back to the U.S. Constitution that does not allow individuals to be federally taxed at all.
This is exactly how I see it: everyone pays the same percentage, the poorest pay nothing
Everyone tweet this video at Donald Trump!
Antonio C Steve Forbes wealthy as billionaire. wants a flat tax to pay way less. we will pay the same
This video is good but the flat tax needs to be 10% for ALL with no loopholes.
If Forbes pays 17% and he makes 1 billion a year, Forbes would then pay 117,000,000 dollars in taxes. What median income person is paying 117 million dollars in taxes?
Also if we have to pay taxes everyone should. Because if we don't then the guy who makes one dollar more than $52500 has to pay taxes while the guy who make one dollar less doesn't.
Jay Patel sounds like the greatest reason to spend a dollar towards charity but I see what you mean.
Jay Patel No the guy would pay a tax on the 1 dollar not the whole amout.
The first 52500$ would of course be tax free for everyone. Every other dollar that goes beyond that level will be taxed.
Yes, and that guy making $1 more would pay 17 cents in tax.
"Yes, and that guy making $1 more would pay 17 cents in tax." 17% of 1$ I guess.
The only rebuttal I would offer to this is: when you implement a flat tax you eliminate incentive for charitable contributions. Then wouldn't that result in an enormous burden on the welfare system and cause many charity organizations to fold? Wouldn't it better benefit charities if the income tax process included a portion earmarked for charity, then give the taxpayer an option to choose the charity that it benefits (i.e. local church, Samaritan's purse, etc., or split it between orgs)?
You have a point, but plenty of people today donate without taking deductions and did before there was a federal income tax.
when someone does charity while keeping tax deduction on back of their mind is that even charity?
if someone wants to give they will give no matter what.
The government, having inserted itself into the charity business for votes, has already managed to do this. There were more charitable donations during the age of the so-called robber barons than there are now.
My problem is that taxes hurt the middle class in unfair ways, I usually pay in 15-20,000 a year in taxes and get back maybe 1500(last year I had to pay in), I have a friend who on average pays in 7-10,000 and because of multiple children has gotten back 14-16,000 the last few years, so here is my problem with this, he makes under certain amounts and with the kids, he gets food assistance, rent assistance, heat assistance, and other help every month, so when he gets his tax return he can afford to buy extravagant toy's (Boat, Camper, and new Harley last 3 years) So not only does he spend the taxes I pay in, he gets to blow it on things I can't afford (Well maybe I could if I don't save for retirement) and be saved the rest of the year by more taxpayer dollars! The current welfare/tax system hurts the middle class and helps the poor too much and what's the incentive to try and do better? Then even he says he won't be able to afford the toys... I don't believe you should be able to get back thousands more than you pay in, at least for years and years... I have no problem helping the needy, but not all these others who are doing just fine! I would be all for a flat tax where everyone pays their share, but NOONE gets back more than they paid in for more than 1 year!
Taxation is extortion...
ex·tor·tion
ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
And extortion is THEFT!
you still need a functional government though, the courts of the government is very important, and public services, have a flat tax of 10% cut a lot of wasteful spending and leave it at that, so the government can still have a military but budget better for it
Awesome but I say No to the arbitrary $52,000 cutoff. Everybody pays their share, and then nobody can complain.
The thing about it is, if the impetus behind the proposal is to reduce compliance costs, why spend money going after people we do not collect money from? At a certain point the person pays less tax than it costs to collect those taxes if their income is sufficiently low. It does not make sense to tax the lowest incomes if it costs $200 to collect $100 just for example.
Well isn't this a fault of the tax collection system? It seems like another loophole that needs to be fixed.
knottheory79220 That's when the IRS would sit on their asses and let tax debt accumulate over the years until it becomes profitable for them to come collect it.
Ian Connel When people can't afford to eat they rob and steal. When people are resentful of the massive wealth gap, ...
Tanner Smith no adult in this country goes hungry.
A flat tax would take away the ability of politicians to vilify segments of society. And, that is why we will never see it.
look into N.E.S.A.R.A
This is interesting. I also wonder about Milton Friedman's idea of eliminating all welfare programs in favor of a negative income tax for those under the poverty line. It would eliminate the negative incentive for misbehavior while also providing the basic needs for those people.
I am happy with flat taxes. Way better than consumption taxes. The brackets we have now aren't really the problem ... 4 [or however many] brackets of tiered taxes isn't that hard. It's all the deductions and credits that complicate the system.
exactly!
7 brackets is very simple.
Erik Back maybe sales tax on used property to curb selling stolen pe
Stolen property snd obsoleting property already owned
if any consumption tax is considered it should be only on the basis of used property being secondarily sold such tax would benefite the environment by curtailing the disposible society possibly curb theft as the following the paper work may expose some criminals
If some people pay 0% tax, and others pay 17% it isn't a flat tax. Other then that I lack the economical know how to know wetter this is a good idea. I mean of course the tax code should be simplified, and loopholes need to be cut. But I don't know if going to a flat tax would be best.
Will-I- Am no argument just insult
rutger5000 I'm pretty sure they mean that anything above the $52,800 would be taxed, making it still the same for everyone.
Charlie Jindra Owh that actually does make sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Though I wonder if this will bring enough revenue into the USA government for it to run. You'd probably have to cut back massively on defense (I'm a big supporter of that)
rutger5000 Wetter? please explain... what is "wetter"?
Degodoy Carlos You've got me I made a spelling error. Congrats, I hope you feel smart.
I remain whole heartily unconvinced by this flimsy argument.
Flat tax is the ONLY fair tax.
i love giving a nice car to the fed every year, don't you?
Rip
0% and 17% is two Tax rates
Agreed I have been hearing of this since the 1980s why haven't they done it
I support the idea of a flat tax, but 17% and 0% is two tax rates too...
3:57 Can't you pause that screen for at least 15 seconds? Very informative.
Here's another idea. Why not abolishing the (personal) income taxes completely?
Great Stuff! I agree so much with this. It just makes sense.
The Average CEO makes 380 TIMES as much as the average Employee. Is that fair
This is the first PragerU video I will share. Nice work.
#FlatTax
Why the 1st!? They have tons of great informative factual videos that help open the eyes of the lemmings...
@@WyattHD
They don't. Most of their videos are poorly informed and researched shyte.
this is one of the best prager u vids yet!!!!!!!
@fast and bulbous can you back up your statement with facts, please?
@@wwrite
Well, you could show me a single well made political video on this channel and I could tell you how it sucks.
To decrease taxes we need to reduce debt. To reduce debt we need to cut spending. To cut spending we need to stop fighting unnecessary wars.
Brutus Tan You are a master of extrapolation.
Well, if you look at what the Republicans have done about the economy, then you look at the results, I'd say that it's best that we learn from our mistakes rather than push for an agenda that has a history of failing.
I'd be more skeptical of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives for the time being, the economy under politicians such as Reagan and Bush has suffered years later. To push for an immediate flat tax in a rapidly changing global economy isn't a wise choice of action. What we should do is actually focus on what we're spending our money on, like the F-35 program, which is wasting a lot of money, or the Zumwalt-class destroyer, which we're spending billions of dollars on when they haven't even been proven to be practical in combat. We spend a lot on the military and warfare for a reason, but there are places we can cut back.
the VA and military account for almost 40%, based on their single-payer vid. That's hardly 'socialist,' unless you're a Soviet, lol.
You tell them, Steve Forbes - your righteous anger is contagious!
Mr. Forbes, kindly, Sir, please don't forget to talk about abolishing the Fed!!!
The case for no taxation
I don't understand, in the US does the government take the tax directly from your income? In NZ when I get my pay check each week it's already had the taxes, so I never have to sit down and "do my taxes". Is this not the same in the US?
I'm no expert but I interned as a tax prep in college. Your explanation is pretty spot on
They take significantly more of it than than they should and then make you sit down and full out ridiculous amounts of paperwork before they give you any of the difference back, and they don't even pay interest on it
John Waugh I personally don't have ridiculous amounts of paperwork at the moment, but everything you said is spot on.
The NZ tax code is pretty simple compared to the US. Plus we only pay tax to the Government in Wellington, but in the US you usually have to pay Federal, state, and local taxes, so its multi layered, which makes it more complex
Liam Collins The USA tax code is 10,000 pages and is revised every year. The IRS has 100,000 employees. The Fair Tax would in fact be much fairer. With the wealthy paying a large percentage of all taxes. Unfortunately the USA Congress doesn't work on common sense. It is driven and controlled by the lobbyists and the special interests they represent. Like government workers (IRS), the tax preparation industry, and the people who benefit the most from the many deductions written into the 10,000 pages of tax code.
I’ve always said that. No deductions or write offs no irs no tax forms just a plain and simple tax. While no taxes are fair this would be best for everyone. Also getting government out of business and no tolerance for any part of the government bring over budget
> When you gotta fill out tax forms yet the irs has all the information already and will call you out if it's done wrong
The best one would be the Fair Tax Act. Eliminate the Federal Income Tax altogether and just have a 23% sales tax on new goods.
*****
No, no, you were right the first time.
Yes, The FairTax is 0 or zero income tax.
The 23% is an inclusive sales tax (with the income tax, end products current experience on average 22% inclusive tax) and once the income tax is eliminated, the cost of goods or services may go up by 1% (of the cost of the product) but you get your entire pay check. Correct, no more FICA taxes collected! The poverty solution is actually quite genius too. What if you were a millionaire at the beginning of the year and flat broken at the end of they year, go ahead and pay that income tax. The prebate is sent to people from rich to poor, as long as you are a citizen. This way if you status changes that quick, no problem, no taxes to worry about and you will not be paying taxes at the poverty level.
In addition, I love how SF is talking about how the two tier tax bracket has been abused since the 80s, well guess what not only is this Flat Tax already 2 tier it's just as ripe for abuse. The Fair Tax is more easily enforceable and is only taxed on end product. In addition the FairTax requires the removal of the 16th Amendment.
You like Income Tax or as like to call them invisible VAT taxes, then let's keep this non-sense system and play more games with it.
Personally, I don't think the FairTax goes far enough, I want the elimination of Property taxes. No one should be required to forfeit their house and land if everything else is paid off.
then no one would buy new goods moron... that will mean firings & more people living on welfare... which is a drain on tax-payers money!!!
In what odd logic is that? Just to avoid the tax, the tax is passed down. This is the dumbest statement with no logic to back it up.
Flat rate sales tax only, no other taxes of any kind.
D8W2P4 maybe then you’ll be able to buy a pack of gum for a dollar in every state!
Agreed. Tax consumption at 10%, don’t tax income.
That's the exact taxes the iberals say illegal immigrants pay.
Yes
No taxes period
It is interesting, I have looked at the tax code and cannot find any requirement for paying a tax on labor. Perhaps I am missing something. 🤔
The problem with politics are all the politicians. We need more successful farmers and successful business people in office, and less politicians!
So if I pay no income tax if I make 52,800 a year, what happens when I make 55,000 a year? I get taxed back down to 46,000 a year...
This is the problem with brackets, not flat tax.
Not true. You only get taxed on the amount over $52,800. In your example that would be $2200. 17% of $2200 is only $374 in tax
Aaron Becker Aha. Thanks man.
Even if you make $200,000 per year, the first 52,800 would be tax free under this system.
Dallas Criddle for a family of four. And why should society shoulder the burden for someone else's life choices. You get undeserved rewards for getting married and having children, while the rest of society gets the unrewarded duty of having to pay for your consumption of more public services than a single person that barely uses any. Kill all taxes for everyone and make everyone accountable for their own damn lives through insurance and the free market. Want police and fire protection, buy insurance and let the insurer provide it. Want your kids to be educated, pay for it or home school them. But don't in any way infer to me that having children gives you a claim on mine or anyone else's labor and resources unless they get to claim the same from you and your children in return.
Every adult should pay their 17% no matter how much they make or don't make
Mr Hallman I am down for that.
Mathmatically speaking, having everyone's taxes be the same percentage would make the rich pay larger amounts and the poor pay smaller amounts whilst still keeping everything fair. The only differences really would be the amounts, as it's just how percentages work.
Mr Hallman how about the guy that his property burned down. How about the victim of theft or storms. Where does that fund payment come from
Elimination of tie with federal reserve 90 percent of the current unnecessary govt employees no need for tax
Every adult should pay their 0% no matter how much they make or don't make
The american revolution wasn't about the tax, it was about our right to represent ourselves in a government that governs us and decides those taxes.
Lol it wasn't "a single tax over tea"
In 2003 there was a flat tax reform in Slovakia, it boosted our economy so much, it even exceeded predictions. But then social democrats took power for 10 years
Are the social-dems still in power & hows the economy now?
@@yeahwhateveridc6062 they are not finally after 12 years. Obviously flat tax is not a thing anymore, bureaucracy went up, we cannot even effectivelly use available eurofonds because of that bureaucracy. We went down in every economic list by like 20 - 30 places. Elections were in february, from 4 parties in coalition, the biggest is mostly populist but other 3 will hopefully do some economic reforms because its abysmal, we slept for too long