BenNatuf
Limit Authority
here you're confusing what should be state government responsibilities with federal government responsibilities. The federal governments tax code (if it has to have one) should concern itself with federal issues and let the states worry about themselves. It is not the federal governments responsibility to make sure anyone has food and housing, those are personal responsibilitiers, and if some fall short its the states that should be holding them up.If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...
and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....
mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....
i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....
we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.
The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.
My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.
I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.
Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....
In parts of AL a person can probobly live on 10K without any assistance, in parts of NY you can't. These are local issues not federal issues.
And who said it had to be 20%? In all liklihood if we changed the metrics and got the federal government out of the states business it could probobly be as low as 4 or 5%. By doing this we give the states more room to take care of these issues locally through their programs and taxes which would be a much more efficient way of doing it than trying to come up with a one size fits all exemption that in reality doesn't fit anybody.