Do you think anyone takes seriously the notion of equal protection, when the rates of taxation vary widely based upon arbitrarily assigned financial privileges, like marriage, mortgage interest (rates), and number of children? Furthermore, why should various income brackets have different marginal propensities to save, invest, and consume best upon the government's unrelated agenda of revenue requisition?
Flat tax is the only way. Not only does it eliminate the preposterous system of penalties and privileges inherent to graduated tax systems, it can still be progressive without using absurd exemptions. Flat tax does not encourage or discourage saving/spending based upon household income because the marginal rate of taxation is the same for everyone.
For clarification, I do not believe any tax exemptions or special provisions in the code should exist. The impact on how people decide to use their money is honestly not of great importance to me, meanwhile, though to be fair I am open to being persuaded that it deserves to be a serious consideration.
The flat tax is somewhat less off-putting in the context of market socialism. If there was already a basic income in place, some income controls, and businesses controlled by their workers regardless of whether they are benefiting from outside investments I could see a flat tax not necessarily having to promote vast inequalities of income over time - and thus also large inequalities of opportunity and actionable freedom.
As things stand, however, I fear the policy merely exacerbates the flaws in trying to reconcile the goals of a liberal, constitutional republic with those of a capitalist economy.
Poll
