Doug, You made some good Points...
You suggested: If the only variables that Congress can fiddle with in a flat tax system are: standard deduction, tax rate, and what 'taxable income' is, it seems like there's a lot less room for social engineering than the current system allows.
PLEASE EXPLAIN! Under TODAY'S system all Congress fiddles with are: Exemptions, credits, pensions, standard deduction, tax rate, and what 'taxable income' is. -- And what makes you so sure "Exemptions, credits and pensions" would not be part of a "flat tax" system?
.
You then assumed: So, it seems like the only thing they can really play with is the definition of taxable income, but a flat tax law can be written which defines 'taxable income' very clearly and solidly, which would prevent (or at least impede) Congress from changing it.
WE ALREADY HAVE a definition of TAXABLE INCOME! It can be easy as Pie to compute for a W-2 wage earner (which is the majority of the taxpayer population) - or it can be much more complicated.
If your GRIPE is the definition of TAXABLE INCOME, and all the Special Interest and Social Engineering definitions that go into it - Then So Be It!! - But that is NOT a "Flat Tax" system. You can change the definition of Taxable Income without changing or FLATTENING the tax RATES on that income.
.
Then you possibly CORRECTLY surmised: Which means that a flat tax would drive Congress towards more spending bills/bureaucratic regulations and punitive federal laws. At least we'll have more time to deal with these new impositions on us.
So WHY is THIS better than a Variable rate (progressive) Income Tax?
At least with the INCOME TAX you CAN make your own decisions and effect the way you are taxed. With Regulations and Laws you are COMPELED (subject to physical FORCE and if necessary JAIL) to behave the way "they" decide you WILL.
Colin |
