Follow by Email

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Insidious Nature of the 'Flat' and Fair' Income Tax

'9-9-9'? A flat 20%? On the face of it, they both sound good. Catchy, simple- and grossly unfair when you scratch below the surface! How about 0-0-0? Or a REALLY flat 0%? Ron Paul says that the income tax is the Government saying it OWNS you, AND your income- 'graciously' allowing you to keep a portion after it takes it's big cut off the top. What most of these candidates fail to mention (as well as most of the media), is that '9-9-9' or a flat 20% is so regressive- in that both tax schemes unfairly take from the poor and the middle class a larger share of their income than either does from the moderately rich or the very wealthy. If you make $20,000,000 a year, 20% is $4,000,000. That's a hefty sum, but you STILL have $16 mil! If you make $30,000 (and are trying to raise a family!), that's $6000, leaving you with only $24,000 for food, shelter, energy, education, clothing and other necessities. 

But the solution is not the job-killing and also patently unfair 'soak the rich' plan that so many Big-Government Progressives favor. Even if you make $1,000,000, if you're a business owner, you likely don't BANK all your income, but re-invest it in your company. That $4 mil the gov't takes is $4 mil that you WON'T be using to hire new employees, expand your business creating new jobs or investing in plant and equipment that also create jobs. And the VERY wealthy ALWAYS will find a way to hide, stash or (most destructively) EXPORT their income overseas. Again, money being taken out of the U.S. economy that could be put to productive job-creating investment here at home.

When you eliminate the income tax totally, with he revenues STILL there from the remaining revenue streams, you will only go back to about 2002 revenue levels. The government ran without too many problems w-a-a-a-a-y back ten years ago, so why can't it now? Too many bureaucrats trying to protect their useless jobs, too many individuals and corporations feeding off of the government trough, and too many lawyers, lobbyists and crooks siphoning taxpayer money out of the government that could be better used in the private sector to create REAL jobs! Ron Paul proposes paring down the total workers, eliminating useless and counter-productive agencies (while still rolling their USEFUL programs into more streamlined agencies), and getting America back to work by getting the Federal Government Monster off the backs of every American, out of their wallets, and out of the job of micro-(mis)managing every economic decision that every small, medium and large business makes.

A message for Big Government Demopublicans AND Republicrats: Quit hiding behind 'the children', first responders and other vital parts of LOCAL and STATE governments! The Federal government should NOT be funding those jobs in the first place! State and local governments, while not perfect, are more responsive to the needs of their constituents, and FAR more responsible in utilizing those dollars. All the Federal Bureaucrats and their enablers in D.C. do is take our state and local money, then dole a PORTION of it back to us, and tell us we 'can't get along without Federal dollars'! What a joke. How about leaving ALL of our money at the state and local level- without the strings, unfunded mandates and ridiculous and counterproductive Federal rules and regulations that go along with it?

Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.


  1. As far as shrinking the government and eliminating income tax altogether, I'm with you in spirit, but you do have a mathematical error. If everyone pays 20%, it is inaccurate to say that "both tax schemes unfairly take from the poor and the middle class a larger share of their income." No, such a tax scheme takes precisely the same "share" from everyone's income - 20%. The hit to a poorer person's wallet may hurt more, but it's definitely the same "share" (percentage).

  2. The same "share', yes, but of TOTAL income. My point is, the lower a person's income, the less and less they have of 'disposable' income, and the higher amount they pay for the basic exxentials- food, shelter, energy, education, etc. So while the PERCENTAGE is the same, the amount that the tax eats into income that would be spent on NECESSARY spending increases. A person making $250,000/year spends a far smaller percentage of their income on the basic essentials than someone making, say $20,000/year.


ALl Respectful, intelligent comments welcome! A free exchange of ideas is the foundation of a healthy society!