"Plus a flat tax does not address scams where the rich shelter their money so as to pay no tax at all. Those would be passive activity losses."

Tax shelters are propagated in large part by the complexity of the current tax code. Invest your money here....no tax. Invest you money there....big tax. Get rid of such incentives one way or the other and many tax shelters disappear. Will people still try to avoid paying taxes? Of course!! This is true in any system. But the lower the rewards for such behavior, the fewer folk resort to such behavior.

As far as thinking before I jump, you'll notice the decision is voluntary. One would be able to opt for which ever method was more advantageo...

"Plus a flat tax does not address scams where the rich shelter their money so as to pay no tax at all. Those would be passive activity losses."

Tax shelters are propagated in large part by the complexity of the current tax code. Invest your money here....no tax. Invest you money there....big tax. Get rid of such incentives one way or the other and many tax shelters disappear. Will people still try to avoid paying taxes? Of course!! This is true in any system. But the lower the rewards for such behavior, the fewer folk resort to such behavior.

As far as thinking before I jump, you'll notice the decision is voluntary. One would be able to opt for which ever method was more advantageous. Just like you, folk would opt for the system under which they would pay less. Thus no need to disparage the idea by scare talk of high rates before the fact.

"Current tax law rewards taxpayers for investments that benefit the country, they don't reward you for hurting the country.

Unless you understand what you're talking about quit parroting the party line."

No....large parts of the tax code simply represent the respective lobbying power of particular special interests at the the time that part part of the code was enacted. You don't need a tax code 17 times as wordy as the Bible if you're solely worried about the nation as a whole. You only need a tax code that bloated when you have quite a few fingers in the pie. So just who is spouting "party" lines?

"Answer this question. How much tax revenue does your system take in? How do you make u...

"Current tax law rewards taxpayers for investments that benefit the country, they don't reward you for hurting the country.

Unless you understand what you're talking about quit parroting the party line."

No....large parts of the tax code simply represent the respective lobbying power of particular special interests at the the time that part part of the code was enacted. You don't need a tax code 17 times as wordy as the Bible if you're solely worried about the nation as a whole. You only need a tax code that bloated when you have quite a few fingers in the pie. So just who is spouting "party" lines?

"Answer this question. How much tax revenue does your system take in? How do you make up the difference?"

Again, you miss the entire point. First, there is no specific "system" being advocated, just a general concept that I believe is worthy of thought and development to flesh it out. Second, put in any percentage you like for the flat tax. The whole idea is that it is an optional test run to begin. The purpose is not to effect a tax cut, but a tax simplification. Revenue neutrality is a good guide to judge its effectiveness. If it were up to me I would put in the largest reasonable percent those who oppose the change propose. Then at the end of 10 years or so, see how revenues performed and fine tune the system from there. Just make sure to enact a hard compact from the outset. Government has a bad habit of gobbling all extra revenue. It would be tragic to agree to an artificially high rate at the outset to ensure revenue neutrality if at the end of the experiment revenues were found to have boomed and the rate were not reduced accordingly.

You have an interesting way of running the government. Don't do any forward calculations just run the test and see how it works out. That is disastrous management. In fact that doesn't even qualify for the word management.

I would agree with you that the code could be written in layman terms that everyday people could understand. When the tax code is unclear you can usually go to a CPA's website and it will be in language more understandable.

However the flat tax is a tax cut for the rich under sheep's clothing of tax simplification. If you want to make it easy for the rich just keep the same tax brackets that everybody currently has and offer no deductions or exemptions. You don't see any...

You have an interesting way of running the government. Don't do any forward calculations just run the test and see how it works out. That is disastrous management. In fact that doesn't even qualify for the word management.

I would agree with you that the code could be written in layman terms that everyday people could understand. When the tax code is unclear you can usually go to a CPA's website and it will be in language more understandable.

However the flat tax is a tax cut for the rich under sheep's clothing of tax simplification. If you want to make it easy for the rich just keep the same tax brackets that everybody currently has and offer no deductions or exemptions. You don't see any rich people pushing that, they want a rate that cuts their taxes in half. It's that simple.