Ok....
One more time.....
Eliminate the IRS....
Implement a sole 10% consumption tax....
The tax take will increase many times over....
And the money stays at home....
Why...because the other home wants some too.....
...........................................................................
Nobody get's it....
In fact Bernanke is of the opposite school, a rather socialistic one....
..................................................................
A world wide new stock exchange, efficiently handled in all aspects, plus local personal discount banking, plus a 10% sole consumption tax to be collected and managed by township....
Get's the US hummin again....and can get done with a little paper and ink.....and will make the world hum along.....
I think many of us do get it, and we understand the issue in more complexity than meets the eye by such a simple and straightforward proposal for a consumption tax. This is another version of the flat tax, but one based on consumption rather than income.. The great virtue is simplicity, and everyone pays, so the underground cash economy gets taxed as well. That's a huge advantage! Unfortunately there is a compensating major disadvantage to the flat tax in all its manifestations in any society where incomes vary dramatically, as they do in the U.S.
The U.S. has a serious problem on its hands which could eventually result in social discord, elevated crime rates and economic regression. Not enough capital is being left in the lower half of the middle class which is roughly forty percent of the population. In that cohort real wages are not even staying level, they are declining! At the same time income in the upper 10% of the population is increasing rather dramatically. When corrected for population in these two classes we find that the income disappearing from the bottom cohort is reappearing in the upper cohort.
I have previously posted my hypothesis that the two most important causes for this disturbing trend are: 1. collapsing progressiveness and increased compression in the U.S. income tax rates -- which I learned from reading Piketty has fed the steep, and unjustifiable on the basis of productivity, rise in executive compensation -- and, 2. The compounding effect of taxing unearned income at lower rates than earned. I recently finished reading Piketty's massive study of capital flows in the Western industrialized economies and found that there is excellent support for my thesis in the economic data.
In summary, there has been, in the U.S. since roughly the 1980s, an economically unhealthy redistribution of wealth from the lower economic classes to the upper classes. This should not be allowed to continue, and the best way to stop further deterioration of living standards is to bring back some of the progressiveness in tax rates by restoring at least some of the tax brackets lost in the 1980s and by raising the top marginal rate some. I don't hear anyone calling for a return to the 90% top marginal rate of the 1950s, but a top rate in the neighborhood of 50% - 60% combined with a modest reduction in the lowest brackets would probably be enough to stem further deterioration and bring real wages back in line with inflation and productivity gains. The adjustment needs to be close to revenue neutral and of the right size to produce a balanced budget. If overall revenue is to be reduced, then, of course, fiscal restraint is needed..
The problem with all the flat tax proposals, including the consumption tax version, is that they will cause the unhealthy wealth discrepancy now evident in the U.S. economy to get worse.
A progressive tax is a fair tax, as is a flat tax, because everyone pays exactly the same tax rate on the same dollar earned/spent from the first dollar earned/spent through the billionth dollar earned/spent. The problem with any flat tax is that, although not unfair, it is indirectly regressive in any society where incomes differ dramatically; capital will move toward the upper economic eschelon and become increasingly concentrated there along with political power. Contrast this with a progressive tax. When the rates are properly adjusted, real income grows across the economic spectrum according to productivity and inflation. Presently we have rising productivity coupled to falling real incomes. This is very, very unhealthy for the longer term outlook..
The rates on unearned income need to be revisited as well. Lower rates on unearned income may be viewed as inherently unfair, because the rates on earned and unearned income are different for the same dollar earned. But it isn't fairness so much as the damage caused by the compounding effect of lower unearned income rates over time that demands we visit this aspect of our U.S. tax structure.
I, like virtually everyone, want to see our U.S. federal taxes greatly simplified, but we must find a way to do that without destroying our economy and our society.