Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LandCafe] A Flat tax

Expand Messages
  • Edward Dodson
    Ed Dodson responding... ... receiving low incomes. ... level to take these people from income tax all together requires an alternative income for Government.
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ed Dodson responding...
      Fred Foldvary wrote:


      >The idea of a flat tax stumbles on the impact it could have on people
      receiving low incomes.
      >To raise the personal allowance for income tax payers to a high enough
      level
      to take these people from income tax all together requires an alternative
      income for Government.<

      I'm not arguing for a flat-rate income tax, but the flatness includes
      eliminating almost all deductions, credits, and other loopholes, and this
      extra revenue would offset the loss from reducing the higher rates. For
      example, in the US, mortgage interest and property taxes can be deducted
      from taxable income. These deductions would be eliminated.

      Ed here:
      Inasmuch as all of our societies raise revenue via the taxation of income,
      the rate structure -- it seems to me -- ought to be progressively applied to
      unearned income streams. The simplicity of a flax tax can be combined with
      progressivity in a way that exempts income earned by producing goods and
      providing services, then imposes an increasing rate of taxation on ranges of
      income above the exempted amount. Such a structure I refer to as a
      "graduated flat tax," which could work roughly as follows:

      * Individual income up to the national median would be exempt (I'll use
      $50,000 U.S. for purposes of example). Thus, half of all working people
      would be fully exempted from paying taxes on their income. Even without an
      extensive analysis this would benefit all lower level workers and many
      retirees.

      * A rate of 5% would be applied to incomes greater than $50,000 up to
      $100,000

      * A rate of 10% on incomes greater than $100,000 up to $250,000

      * A rate of 15% on incomes greater than $250,000 up to $500,000

      * A rate of 20% on incomes greater than $500,000 up to $1 million

      * A rate of 25% on incomes greater than $1 million.

      The exact tax rates and ranges of income subject to those rates would be
      determined during the budget process. Here, I also suggest that we press for
      balanced budget legislation that mandates the replacement of outstanding
      government debt with fully amortizing bonds as existing debt matures and is
      to be refunded. Amortizing bonds repay both interest and principal to
      investors, so that the debt is fully repaid upon maturity. Governments would
      need to adjust the tax rates above in order to fully service the debt.

      I argue that the above structure effectively captures via taxation a high
      degree of incomes that are rent-derived. However, this does not substitute
      for the necessity of capturing rent by the direct taxation of land values.
      The more revenue raised by taxing land rents, the amount of unearned income
      flows subject to taxation will fall.

      With balanced budgets, a diminution of land speculation and an economy more
      likely to generate sustained full employment without inflation, the national
      median income is certain to increase. Thus, the level of individual incomes
      exempted from taxation will also over time increase.

      That, at least, is my thinking on the dynamics at play.

      Ed Dodson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.