Flat Tax a million times over. We could end the totalitarian IRS, have a simplier code, close loopholes (which really only rich people use anyway) and we can finally just get back to basics of everyone paying the same precentage and stop discriminating on people because of class. Just put in a low zero bracket so people who make next to nothing don't have to pay. But people who make enough pay the same percentages. The rich will still pay more.
its simplier. im not pro flat tax, im pro mostly flat tax. put in full tax deductions for: -health care/insurance costs, and health care saveings account(for testing for and treating physcial health problems and birth control. -education costs for learning how to make physcial survival needs(renewable energy, water purifiers, heating and cooling, shelter, soap, medical supplies and services for testing for and treating physcial health problems and birth control, ...) -charity for giving to the poor for their physcial survival, $12/h+, +resources you spent and gave......$100/m deduction for being a registered organ donar. -business costs for makeing physcial survival products. individual gets $7/h to $12/h for makeing and teaching uncorocred willing people how to make physcial surivial products. -only man made property value tax, maybe plus sales tax only on lavish items/dangerous rec drugs. everyone allowed to keep at least 3mil started at age 0 minus $23,000/y, plus deductions. deductions roll over. tax % not higher for poor than rich.
Flat tax makes just makes more sense. Poor people pay more tax anyway through indirect and direct taxes so it voids the argument that a "progressive tax" offers fair distribution. If a flat tax is done correctly, you could distribute the fairness. You could still have 0% tax until a lower limit is reached and from then pay tax rate x. You could have a state level tax rate and a local rate. The point is that if you have a tax system that fails to collect tax then is it the best system?
Clearly progressive taxation is a necessary means to promote vertical equitability in capitalist societies, if we desire them to be fair? Furthermore, since it prevents wealth from becoming concentrated in the hands of the few, it raises the average proportion of income spent, since people on lower incomes consume a higher proportion of their income, and so progressive taxation raises the marginal propensity to consume. This boost to consumption, in my opinion, offsets most possible detrimental effects of disincentives generated by progressive income tax systems. If we want society to be more vertically equitable, then we must make an equity-efficiency trade off. Progressive taxation generates a substantial increase equity for only a small cost in efficiency, thus it should be put into place under even simple cost-benefit analysis, as all modern Western capitalist economies have done. These include the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany and virtually all of the European Union. Most professional macroeconomists, including Paul Krugman, argue for a system of progressive taxation. It's more fair and it makes economic sense. What's not to like?
It guarantees that those who pay more do pay more, and also means that as a proportion, more of the economy's liquidity is in the cycle rather than gathering dust beneath the streets of Zurich.
Just like we don't ask grandmas to do heavy lifting at a barn raising (they set the picnic table) those with the means to contribute more go hammering away yet, everyone contributes according to their abilities. Obviously, higher incomes have more means to contribute compared to lower incomes after basic living expenses like food, fuel and utilities. 15% to a min wage income is like groceries for a year but for high income it's like groceries for 6-1/2 years.
Progressive Taxation is an effective way to ensure that everyone pays their fair share and contributes to the building of the nation. I reject the argument put forward by those who support Flat Taxation that it is superior because the rich will stay pay more. While that is true, the argument leaves out the fundamental point that the percentage of tax paid is still the same, meaning that high income earners are contributing the equivalent of low income earners despite the former earning vastly more money.