I don't see that assumption. However, there can be two ways to look at it: one is looking at only taxes paid on income from a job. Though that's the usual way to look at it, it can be a little misleading, imo. To me, direct cash subsidies are essentially a direct tax rebate.DavidSnider said:DHs example assumes that the taxes aren't being used to help the poor I guess.
Perhaps. Or perhaps person 1 ($80 income/$8 tax) would have to forego creating another job for a person 3 ($5 income, $0.5 tax)D H said:... The person who makes eighty might will have to forego eating the caviar appetizer.
"I must say Steve Forbes was a genius," [Estonian]Prime Minister Andrus Ansip declared during an interview in his hilltop office. "
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm?cnn=yesIn 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks...
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
A flat tax is a tax system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income, regardless of their income level. For example, if the flat tax rate is 10%, someone making $50,000 would pay $5,000 in taxes, while someone making $100,000 would pay $10,000.
Proponents of a flat tax argue that it simplifies the tax system, reduces the burden on the wealthy, and promotes economic growth. It also eliminates the need for tax deductions and loopholes, as everyone pays the same rate.
Critics of a flat tax argue that it is regressive, meaning it places a greater burden on low-income individuals. It also eliminates the progressive nature of the tax system, where higher-income individuals are taxed at a higher rate. Additionally, a flat tax could potentially decrease government revenue.
There is no clear consensus on how a flat tax would affect the economy. Some argue that it would stimulate economic growth by reducing the tax burden on individuals and businesses. Others argue that it would decrease government revenue, leading to cuts in programs and services that could negatively impact the economy.
Yes, there are several countries that have implemented a flat tax, including Russia, Ukraine, and Estonia. However, the effectiveness and impact of these flat tax systems are still debated, and some countries have since abandoned the flat tax in favor of a progressive tax system.