Would a Flat Tax Be More Fair?

The American Revolution started as a tax revolt
– over a single tax on tea! Now look at us. It seems like everything we do is taxed. The system behind these taxes is a bureaucratic
monstrosity; a dead weight on the economy. And it erodes our trust in the government
that’s taxing us. If you have enough lawyers, lobbyists, and
loopholes at your disposal maybe you can game the system. That’s fine for big corporations and wealthy
individuals, but what about the small business owner or the middle class taxpayer? He just has to shut up and pay up. Nothing better illustrates the disaster that
our tax system has become than the mother of all taxes: the federal income tax code. This tax alone, with all its attendant rulings
and interpretations, is estimated to be about 10 million words – and rising! Several years ago, Money magazine took a hypothetical
family’s finances and gave the numbers to 46 tax preparers. Forty-six different estimates came back. In some cases those differences ran into the
thousands of dollars of what the family owed. This from experts who are considered to be
the best in the business. But the taxes themselves are only part of
the cost of this toxic code. There’s also the cost of compliance – the
time, money and effort it takes Americans to prepare their taxes. A George Mason University study puts the annual
cost of compliance as high as $378 billion and the total annual economic cost (including
work hours) at more than $600 billion. Again, these are annual costs – as in every
year! That’s a lot of money that could be used in
more productive ways—creating new products, new services, new medical devices, new cures
for diseases. Clearly, the time has come to drive a stake
through the heart of this tax monster. So, what should be done? Like most things, the best solution is the
most simple: A single flat tax with no deductions, except for a deduction for each adult and
for each child. Fill out a sheet of paper or key in a few
numbers on your computer, and you’re done. This one change would not only make every
citizen’s life easier, it would also transform government, our economy, and our society by
ending the complexity that gives bureaucrats and politicians so much power. They have power because they’re the ones who
dole out the tax favors. It wasn’t always this way. There was a time when corporations primarily
lobbied Washington to keep government out of their businesses. That has changed. In the words of The Atlantic, “The evolution
of business lobbying from a sparse reactive force into a ubiquitous and increasingly proactive
one is among the most important transformations in American politics over the last 40 years.” This favor-seeking is centered on getting
special treatment and tax breaks. A flat tax will help us begin to scale back
that special interest-loving, crony-capitalist big government that we all complain about. Everyone would pay less—not only in taxes,
but also in compliance. Investment and job creation would skyrocket. We’d experience a recovery that would grow
the tax base and—irony of ironies— ultimately generate more revenue for government. I go into this in much greater detail in my
book, Reviving America, but here, in essence, is how it works. Everyone—individuals and corporations—pays
a 17 percent flat rate. This single rate is absolutely critical. Whenever we have two or more tax rates, they’re
like rabbits: they breed. We saw that with the 1986 tax reforms, which
consisted of two rates. They’ve since multiplied into the seven we
have today. Well, you might argue, this sounds great for
the rich, and even the middle class, but what about the poor? Seventeen percent is a big burden. That’s why, under this plan, a family of four
who makes less than $52,800 would pay no income tax. That’s double the current federal poverty
level. This will let people at low income levels
keep more of their money. And for those who think the rich should pay
more, they will. Prior to the passage of the tax cuts that
President Ronald Reagan pushed through Congress in 1981, the top one percent of American earners
accounted for nearly 18 percent of federal personal income tax revenue. By 1988, that same group accounted for nearly
28 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points in only 7 years. By eliminating loopholes and requiring everyone
to pay their fair share, the flat tax offers a model of tax fairness. More than 40 countries and jurisdictions have
enacted the flat tax. When all the facts are considered, the real
question is not whether America should implement this vital reform, but what are we waiting
for? It’s time for another tax revolution. I’m Steve Forbes for Prager University.

  1. The only fair tax, if there must be tax at all, is an absolute flat tax- a set dollar value, the same dollar value for every man woman and child.
    But then all the special interest groups would start bleating about how this person or that should be exempt, how those with more money should pay some-one else's share.
    So then a flat percentage would be imposed, ( proportional taxation , since a person on higher income pays a proportionally higher absolute dollar value in tax) and then the same people would be bleating about how "it isn't fair" that higher income earners pay the same percentage as lower income earners, and get more of their own money back when there's a tax cut.
    So because those people vote, we'd end back at progressive percentage taxation, ( exponential taxation where aspiring people have to pay an escalating proportion of their income), a huge negative feedback on wealth.

  2. Unlike Forbes here I have seen new tax ideas simply added to the roll of existing taxes on the State level. It is a cynical game of "bait and switch" and if the flat tax proponents get what they want, we'll be paying a flat tax on top of an income tax. No thanks! Btw their "next idea" is a VAT Tax which they'll propose as another "replacement tax" but will simply be added on top of existing taxes. So we'll be on the hook for Income Taxes, Flat Tax and a VAT tax. See where this is going? Your taxpayer dollars will prop up failing banks and failing companies because the whole system has become overloaded with debt and incompetence.

  3. There is a huge problem with the Flat Tax: Someone with money can pay 15% of their income easily. A laborer will NOT want to do that! He or she is trying to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads! 15% tax on the poor is outrageous. No. Keep the system the way it is now. The rich want to shift the burden to the poor and the poor (understandably) don't and can't pay that kind of money in taxes. TBH the rich can avoid paying anything on a flat tax, otherwise they wouldn't have proposed it.

  4. It makes too much sense, so will die on the vine. Too many in power might lose their power, and you know that won't happen.

  5. Where was this side of Steve Forbes when he ran for president 23 years ago? He looked and sounded like a robot. If he sounded like this in 1996, maybe he could have won.

  6. This plan works in general, but would still need tinkering. Imagine, for example, if you made $52k, and therefore paid no tax. Would you want to make $55k and pay 17%?

  7. Alan Keyes ran for president the same year Steve Forbes did, 1996. Keyes opposed income tax, period. Why? Because that means that the federal gov't gets to your paycheck before you do. What stops then from taking 50%? 75%? 100%?

  8. Still leaves a large group of folks with no skin in the game. Fair Tax solves the federal tax issue, not a flat tax. We all saw what happened after 1986. The politicians can not be trusted to stand pat.

  9. I like a consumption tax instead. Buy a lot, pay more tax. Spend less pay less. No taxes to file for the public.

  10. I fall below the $52k a year and I would rather pay the 17%. No one should be exempt and all should pay the same 17% rich or poor.

  11. Why would they care about saving money from taxes with crazy spending by the government.

  12. This is why I support H.R.25 (the FairTax Act of 2019). An Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APTP) is good too.

  13. So the poor keep getting a break and continue not contributing to the economy through taxes and everyone else has to pick up their share. You state the only tax breaks would be for the people living in the home, what about supplies. A building contractor is paid to purchase the material to build a house but that money isn't an income it's an expense. Would the contractor be able to deduct this money or not? If not then the contractor is now paying more money in taxes than before because of the added "income". Truthfully if everyone paid 7% of their real income, even the poor, their would be more than enough money to run the government. One of the biggest problems with the income tax is the government's insistence on spending too much. Take someone in congress for example, they get a base pay but then reimbursed for "expenses". These can be far greater than their salaries depending on who they are. Heck some speakers of the house have been reimbursed hundreds of thousands of dollars for alcohol, per year. Yes the tax codes need to change but everyone needs to, as Obama said, "have skin in the game" or pay. Roughly 50% of Americans pay nothing and millions get thousands back from the government. Another way would be that the lowest don't pay taxes but don't get things like the child credit that gets the poor thousands back, far more than what was taken out of there check. Let them keep all their pay check but not claim the child credit and it would save other taxpayers hundreds of millions a year.

  14. If we’re getting our money from a world bank of the federal reserve, owned by someone else and that money that they print is not backed by gold any longer and the fact that tax taking people’s money hard-working people to pay back this loan that we get from this federal reserve. why don’t we just print our own damn money and stop paying the stupid tax?

  15. I would love to pay a flat 10% or 15% a paycheck. If I make $1000/month my tax rate is $100. If I make a BILLION/yr my tax would be a MILLION. For get the deductions I would make it zero. No deduction for me, nothing for my children. If you make a $1, just a dollar pay your 10 cents and be happy. This youtube video is just BS.

  16. QUESTION: how much would the government revenue be? It obviously won’t be the same because people are playing less tax. So what would change?

  17. How about no income tax unless you make 100,000+ a year and move to a Fedral sales tax exempting nonprepared food cloths up to 1000 per person, and housing and one automobile per household. The sales tax could even be bracketed so luxury items and unhealthy habits (like tobacco & alcohol) have a higher tax rate. Now the consumer has more control on how much they pay in taxes. Keep the corporate taxes, duty taxes and so on, but eliminate all personal income taxes including Social Security and Medicare since they're going broke and finance them through same sales tax. Now it becomes benifical for government to ensure they keep a healthy economy and even promote deflation, because the cheaper stuff is to buy the more tax revenue it generates.


  19. I think we need to look at the source of authority for the current tax system, find out why and where and expose it. I would like to see full disclosure on all the associated tax or contracts.
    And then, we cut back corporate government spending and restore everything back to private ownership. And, oh yeah, the United States is a corporation not a country.

  20. if I was president, I'd do campaign finance reform first and then the flat tax. America would be so much better. What worries me is that we really need to stay ahead of the Chinese economically and our government is doing nothing to help.

  21. This will only be implemented, unfortunately, with the threat of violence against the government. Because, government will not change unless the common person revolts. Usually, resulting in violence. It is merely history repeating itself. Thanks Steve!

  22. The problem with politics are all the politicians. We need more successful farmers and successful business people in office, and less politicians!

  23. Fair is everyone pays the same set percentage. No deductions! If the parasites were paying instead of leaching, they wouldn’t be asking for more free stuff that would be paid for by an equal increase to everyone.

  24. The flat tax would give the top 5% a $260 billion dollar tax cut, the top 6% to 10% would see almost no difference and the bottom 90% of tax payers would have a $260 billion dollar tax increase and the less you make the more your increase would be.
    This is already happening as the wealthiest people now pay 50% less taxes than they did 39 years ago. Which leaves the federal government nothing but debt. So less money goes to the states, the states raise local taxes which punish lower incomes. This is the real reason that college debt is sky rocketing, states also are running deficits and college funding has dropped 80% in most states in the last 30 years. So individual students have to borrow large sums making them indentured servants before they graduate college.
    All because the wealthy are taking a larger slice of the income pie, and percentage of income to ALL TAXES, is lower than most Americans.
    This is a scam paid for by the Uber rich… don’t fall for it.

  25. No, it wouldn't be. All we need is equal protection of the law so that the same amount of income is tax exempt for everybody and then a flat rate that applies to everybody who makes more than the tax exempt amount. For example, if the tax exemption is 25K, everything a person makes over that amount will be taxed at the same flat rate but the effect is a graduated tax that increases proportionately to the amount of income exceeding the exemption. That way everybody is treated exactly the same. That's a fair tax that conforms to equal protection of the law and due process. Which our current code doesn't do and which the proposed flat taxes I've seen or consumption taxes won't do.

  26. We can also use the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to show why a flat tax is necessary. Our current system discriminates based on wealth.

  27. Here we go again with the Ronald Reagan worship. This man was considered the darling of conservatism. But raised taxes 11 times. It takes a group of uninformed Trump fans to believe such insanity.

  28. I don’t think rich people would be so sore about the progressive if they weren’t so insulted by dumb, lower class morons and pandering politicians about not paying their fair share.

    I say this as a middle class person.

  29. Everybody should pay the same % of tax from poor to rich… About 18% for all that would be fair… The rich would still pay a lot more then the poor in terms of money to the state… But then again the liberals would never allow this they don't understand fairness they have different ideas to what a lot of words actually means


  31. Just one issue – there should be no exemptions, otherwise you effectively have more than one tax bracket once again.

    I see no reason why families with low income should not pay the flat tax. And before you' attack me for taking the money from the poor think about this:
    – setting an exemption on a certain level will effectively push people to try and stay just under this 0% tax line.
    – in the long run it will only cause damage to very people it's supposed to "protect", as they will refrain from trying to improve their situation, for example investing into their own education and skills in order to keep their salary low. People are known to choose the "easy" path, disregarding the heavy price they will have to pay down the road.
    – it creates a grey or even black market, with employers paying the money over the 0% tax bracket in cash.
    – it may cause the number of people that officially earn the salary which is not taxable to explode.

    – and last, but not least – it's not fair that some citizens will be exempt from contributing financially to their own country, contribute to the payment of the expenses everyone should participate in, even if the participation is not equal. People that earn significantly more will still pay significantly more in taxes, as if you earn 10 times i.e. 1,000,000 vs. 100,000 then you pay 10 times more in taxes as well, but we'll get away any artificial barriers and segregation between "rich" and "poor".

  32. Steve, what about the cheaters. I know an electrician who makes over 75k a year and only reports 25k. Therefore, getting a return close to 8k because he has 3 kids and wife doesn't work.

  33. The problem is what happens when they decide 17% isn’t high enough? This also needs a balanced budget constitutional amendment , and a cap on the tax rate. Without those two items spending and tax rate will keep going up. I’m for either flat or fair tax over the current mess, but we need constitutional constraints.

  34. Flat taxes already exist for many services. Everyone pays the same tax to register a vehicle, for example. These taxes affect the poor more than they affect the rich, who pay less of their proportion of disposable income for these services.

    Corporations and businesses benefit from this current government the most by getting tax returns funded by the taxpayers. Ford should not be alive right now as a company, but Ford and companies like it have bought the government, exactly what you would expect to happen in a society where the means of production can be concentrated into the hands of a few.

    Small businesses already know how to evade taxes through loopholes. The only person being negatively impacted by taxation is the working poor. This is because of an economic concept known as the marginal propensity to consume.

    Let's say we have two individuals, A makes $25,000 and B makes $100,000, and you have a 10% flat tax.

    A would suffer more that $2,500 could be a months worth of expenses needed to stay alive. Meanwhile, B ends up better off because after a certain cut-off point, the marginal utility of having extra money in his bank account is less in comparison. After about $70,000, the marginal propensity to consume decreases. After all, one person can only live in one house and eat so much food a day.

    For B, most of the income after a certain point would just go to savings account and investments, and with just a flat tax, there would be no capital gains tax, allowing one who is rich to ultimately pay less of their income than one who is poor.

    Even under a flat tax rate, corporations will find a way to evade taxes because taxes affect their bottom line through reinvestments.

    If you want to get rid of a government that favours the interests of capitalists, you need to abolish capitalism.

  35. Milton Friedman did a study on this and determined that a 16% flat tax would actually INCREASE the revenue available to the gov't. while generally lowering the tax liability for the all.

  36. He must have learnt this from the many years he spent earning his honorary degree in economics. These are pretty weak arguments for a flat tax. Please list some countries with a flat tax that have a strong economy? It's not like this nonsense hasn't been tried before.

  37. The problem with a flat tax is the government can't be trusted to keep it flat.

    I'm for a national sales tax, and a complete elimination of Income taxes. You're income should be private information.

  38. Okay, sounds great and all but in what way will this bring money into the government to combat the deficit? (I am genuinely curious)

  39. Shouldn't the low income people pay the same tax while being provided free access to learning resources so they can get better work?

  40. What about all of the accountants that would be put out of work? Yes, I realize there would still be a need for accountants, but it would be drastically reduced if anyone with an eighth-grade education and a calculator could do a tax return in fifteen minutes. Tax preparation companies would be put out of business. Their lobbyists will make sure this doesn't happen.

  41. What about health insurance, rent or mortgage, food clothing shelter? Family of four under 52k? How about every individual earning less then 80k get a tax break and the 17% applies to everyone else?

  42. Our current tax system is right out of the communist manifesto and needs to be changed. The left likes to talk about paying their fair share, when the bottom 50% pays around 2% of all income taxes paid, who, exactly, isn't paying their fair share? Also, this "earned" income credit is nothing short of income redistribution.

  43. I have always been all about a flat tax.

    In your example, what happens when that family goes from making $52K to making $54K?

    Do they pay 17% now?

    If that's the case, they have no incentive to make more money. Just like today a lot of families have no incentive to get a better job and stop receiving gov aid.

  44. Government: you need to tell us how much money you owe us.
    Citizen: But what if I dont know?
    Govt: you go to jail
    Citizen: how would I go to jail if I have to tell you how much I owe?
    Gov: because I know how much you owe.
    Citizen: then why dont you just tell me how much I owe?
    Gov: because you have to tell me. And be honest or we freeze all your assets and throw you in jail.

    A flat tax gets rid of all this junk.

  45. I certainly agree with flat tax and I would love for it to replace our existing system, but even pro-flat tax economists estimate that our tax rate would have to be 18-24% in order for us to maintain our economy the way it was (the last time I read about this was 2012). We spend entirely too much money so I think this video is on the optimistic side of the consequences of flat tax.

  46. A flat tax would have to be set at an amount that the low income people could not pay it. It is perfect now.

  47. Income tax is a direct tax to the people and it’s illegal! This needs to stop. A convention of states can STOP this tax and any other tax that the feds can come up with.INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL!

  48. So you're saying billionaires and millionaires should have the same tax rate as janitors and fast food workers

  49. I'd go with a flat tax from bottom to top. Keep in mind it's a flat tax RATE, so it already depends on the income. I don't see why poor people should be immune from paying tax like the rest of us.

    It's ironic that the video says that having multiple rates tends to expand into more but then recommends two rates: 0% for "the poor" and 17% for the rest of us. If everyone pays tax, everyone has a vested interest in how our tax money is spent.

    The justice system should also be simplified. More complex rules means more opportunity for the wealthy to weasel their way out of taxes (or crimes) while expensive lawyers, bureaucrats and accountants take up more resources while adding nothing productive to the economy.

  50. It seems to make sense but I think it was a bit disingenuous, at times. For example, showing how the top 1% pays 18% of all taxes and how that went up 10percentage points. The other bit of information that should have been included alongside this is how much of the total wealth in the country is held by that 1%, and compare that to the amount of taxes paid. So I think there should still be tax brackets for ridiculously wealthy people, but other than that most of what was said sounded quite reasonable.

  51. Recommend reading a paragraph about the Laffer Curve, it's a very interesting concept that many forget about nowadays

  52. a flat tax would be fair,
    it would allow people to HAVE MORE CONTROl
    corporations should also be made illegal.

  53. How come that rich Middle eastern countries can run a welfare state providing free housing, education and healthcare to all their citizens without collecting income tax???

  54. Have been a fan of this since you first proposed it when you ran for office. I can see why the democrats and even some of the republicans hate this. If you dry up their revenue stream they would lose their power.

  55. And now you know why flat tax will never happen. And even if it did, the political class will chip away at it more & more until it ends up being just as bad as what we have now.

  56. Yeah no thanks. I'd rather die than be taxed as much as the rich or have the rich be taxed as little as me. The best tax system is a progressive income tax. Let's say that there is a flat tax and it's set at 20%. This will destroy lower class people because after paying for basic needs, they have VERY VERY little income left over and if you take that away through taxes then they'll stay poor. If you tax the rich at 20% they won't even notice the difference because they've got more than enough money to keep their basic needs covered and still have billions of dollars left over

  57. Income tax is THEFT! The Constitution affords government the right to tax in two ways: 1) Direct and 2) Indirect. Income tax falls under NEITHER.
    The Federal government is FAR too big and needs to be cut. If they could maintain a small government – as described in the Constitution (You know…. the law of this Republic?) then they would have no need to ROB citizens of their hard owned money.

    The IRS was created to pay for the Civil War. It – and the Federal Reserve (another topic) – needs to GO!!!!!

  58. Getting closer! Still not fair though, because it is a percentage. The flat tax needs to be a fixed dollar amount that each and every person must pay. Say, $1,000 per year. If the federal government can't live on ~$300,000,000,000 per year, then the government needs to be SMALLER, and the politicians paid LESS. Much, MUCH less.

  59. You need rising taxes or it has loopholes. If you have 0% taxes and 17% there will be a group of people who will willingly not earn more in order to not pay taxes becasue if they earn more they have to pay 17% of it and so earn overall less. So at the end you need a rising taxing system.

  60. … the rich pay off the people in power…  Taxes will NEVER be fair… it can't… human greed will NEVER let it happen.

  61. A flat income tax has about as much chance of actually "staying" flat, past the next session of Congress or into the next presidency, as raising the minimum wage has of getting people out of poverty. It's not going to happen. Even Forbes admitted that after Reagan got us down to just 2 brackets, from the prior 16 brackets, it quickly climbed back up to 7 brackets. In fact, the 3rd bracket was added within the very first session of Congress after Reagan left office. There has never been "any" language, in any flat tax bill ever proposed, that would prevent the same thing from happening under any flat income tax. But it would help the very rich.

    According to the latest IRS collections data – FY2016 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/16in01etr.xls), the top 1% of income earners paid an average tax rate (defined as tax paid / gross income) of 26.87%. So the very rich, who were paying 26.87% under the progressive income tax, would be paying only 17%, under the flat income tax. That's a 36.7% cut in their tax rate. Do the math. Here it is two ways.

    1 – ( 17 / 26.87 ) = 36.7% Reduction in Tax Rate
      – OR –
    ( 26.87 – 17 ) / 26.87 = 36.7% Reduction in Tax Rate

    That's a huge tax cut for the top 1% (of which income group Forbes is a member).

    Under the plan proposed by Forbes, the number of people who pay zero tax would increase, at the lower income groups. But what Forbes isn't telling us is that someone has to make up the difference for tax cuts at the top and bottom. So guess who will pay that difference? The middle class taxpayers.

    According to IRS collections data for FY2016 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/16in02etr.xls), the "average" tax rate for the bottom 75% of taxpayers was 6.31%. But under a flat income tax, everyone would pay 17%!!! That's greater than 2-1/2 times what they would pay under the progressive income tax (2.69 times, to be exact).

    So more people are taken off the tax rolls in the bottom income categories and the top 1% are getting a 36.7% tax cut, while the middle class are paying a 169% tax increase (or 269% of what they were paying under the progressive income tax). Yeah… Like that's gonna fly. After the first April 15th passes, the middle class will rise up and demand that rates be adjusted to make them more fair to the middle class. In response, Congress will add a second rate and then a third and before long, we'll be back to where we are.

    But for someone earning tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year, two or three years of paying only 17% tax could amount to millions of dollars in savings. For Forbes and his buddies, just a couple of years of 17% taxes would be a huge windfall. Is it any wonder why Forbes is pushing this scam.

    By contrast, the #FairTax would eliminate personal tax filing and its concomitant expenses altogether, while remaining progressive. It would also permanently eliminate the ability of Congress to hand out tax favors to different corporations, based on which party is in power. That's because there is no way to play favorites with a sales tax. The poor would pay very little or no tax, the middle class would pay at a somewhat higher rate, while the rich pay close to 23%, just as each group does, today. But there would be NO IRS, NO AUDITS, NO TAX FILING, NO Billions in COMPLIANCE COSTS, and Dramatically Reduced Tax Evasion (Nationwide, sales tax evasion is a tiny fraction of federal and/or state income tax evasion).

    But the #SWAMP is desperate to prevent the FairTax from becoming law, because it means that more than 50% of lobbying activity will be eliminated. That's because more than 50% of federal lobbying is related to income tax favors. The SuperPACs that donate tons of money to members of Congress, based on the way those members vote on tax breaks, will no longer have reason to donate to those members. For those congresscritters, the FairTax is their worst nightmare, since it means seriously reduced political donations. How TERRIBLE! Under the FairTax, without mega-donations from SuperPACs, members of Congress might actually have to start listening to their constituents. That could bring about the end of the world… at least for the SWAMP.

    A flat income tax just moves the problems around, to favor the rich. The FairTax eliminates the problems.


  62. A flat SALES tax would be fair for the consumer with no legalized or other minimum pricing schemes by the government or any business.

    Everyone, citizen or not would pay SOMETHING.

    And tax the daylights out of all remittances. 91% remittance tax would be great!
    Tax any and all profits leaving the country at 91%,

  63. OK, but what about income earned abroad that is already taxed? How would that be treated? The system would surely need to be global in order to ensure compliance?

  64. The should not have to pay more we are not a socialist country and the rich should not be punished everyone has a choice how much money they make yes it’s true some people might have to work harder than others but hard work is what built this great nation

  65. Country's wealth is based on how rich are the citizens not how much money does the government have, if you raise taxes you are making the people poorer which means you are making a country poorer

  66. Wtf? No! Why would anyone be inclined to work harder than $52.8k/ year?
    If 10% is good enough for the Lord, the government can work with way less. But EVERYONE would pay it

  67. I like a nice simple straight forward solution to problems and our crazy tax structure is a big, big problem. I’d love to see this flat tax implemented 🙂

  68. I like the idea… But what if you make 62K a year? At 17% you will pay 10.5K in taxes. Now your take home is 51.5K, which by my math is less than the guy making 58K and paying 0 in taxes. There would have to be some kind of scale so an individual does not make less money because he got a promotion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *