The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.
One Example of which I am most familiar:
In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.
Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?
A flat tax is regressive.
You ask why that would impact income inequality?
Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
A flat tax is regressive.
Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Before going all captious, try reading my post above.
I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
Your ideology is not defensible,
What ideology is that? Be specific.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.
Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.