Flat Taxes

[Mina]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

 

[Mr Person]

Flat taxes are regressive laws designed to help the richest get even richer at expense of the poorest.

I'm not anywhere near the richest, but I don't need my taxes slashed and made up for by people who can barely put food on a table.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

A flat tax on all income, outside of selling primary home, with a large personal exemption could be fair

Income from investments and or selling assets being taxed at the flat rate would see taxes on the wealthy go up drastically. Imagine the tax on selling a 20 million dollar capital gain being taxed at the flat rate with no deduction beyond the personal exemption. That would see taxes on the wealthy rise dramatically. Musk would see tax bills in the hundreds of millions in many years.

 

[Mina]

A flat tax on all income, outside of selling primary home, with a large personal exemption could be fair

Income from investments and or selling assets being taxed at the flat rate would see taxes on the wealthy go up drastically. Imagine the tax on selling a 20 million dollar capital gain being taxed at the flat rate with no deduction beyond the personal exemption. That would see taxes on the wealthy rise dramatically. Musk would see tax bills in the hundreds of millions in many years.

Right now, the capital gains tax rate for people earning over $459,750 is 20%. Subjecting it to a flat-tax rate of 9.4%, instead, would be yet another massive windfall for the very rich. There's a reason that the rich, and those who serve them, love the idea of flat taxes. People like Musk would see tax bills drop to a small fraction of their current levels, even as 90% of people suffered through a big tax hike.

Meanwhile, currently those earning less than $41,675 pay no capital gains tax rate at all. If you instead hit them with a 9.4% tax on that, it would be yet another way the flat tax screwed over the working class/lower-middle class.

 

[Bullseye]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

With all due respect: BS. Most Republican/conservatives understand the need of progressive taxation. What most object to is the continual LW braying that "top earners don't pay taxes, or not enough". Basic fact is that over 50% of earners (bottom) pay no federal income tax. whereas the top 10% pay over 70% of all income tax revenue.
I think what most of us on the right actually think is that the current system is as good as we're going to get. Our main complaint is lefties trying successful peace as living ATM's Dems want to use to finance their next brain fart program.



Sure, Ideally, and democratically a flat rate would be most ideologically appealing, but reality gets in the way.

 

[Cameron]

Although we have a progressive tax system, in the sense that poorer people (supposedly) pay less of a percentage of their overall income in tax than wealthier people, our system is actually flat-ish. A billionaire pays the same tax rate on his first $9,950 of annual income as someone who makes $9,950 per year. True, he pays a 37% tax on income above $523k, but so does everybody else who makes $1 over $523k.

The idea of a flat tax rate on all income makes zero sense and is completely unworkable.

 

[Mina]

With all due respect: BS. Most Republican/conservatives understand the need of progressive taxation. What most object to is the continual LW braying that "top earners don't pay taxes, or not enough". Basic fact is that over 50% of earners (bottom) pay no federal income tax. whereas the top 10% pay over 70% of all income tax revenue.

View attachment 67398066

Sure, Ideally, and democratically a flat rate would be most ideologically appealing, but reality gets in the way.

I've honestly never talked taxes with a single Republican who wasn't advocating for changes that would make taxes flatter, if not entirely flat? How about you. Would you alter the current tax system? If so, how would those alterations shift the distribution of tax burden?

Anyway, why would a flat rate be ideologically appealing, ideally and democratically? I get why it's appealing to the very rich, since any practical flat tax is a huge windfall for them, paid for by everyone else. But I think for most of us, there's no ideological appeal.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

Never mind, @Mr Person already said it better than I could have.

 

[Bullseye]

taA flat tax on all income, outside of selling primary home, with a large personal exemption could be fair

Income from investments and or selling assets being taxed at the flat rate would see taxes on the wealthy go up drastically. Imagine the tax on selling a 20 million dollar capital gain being taxed at the flat rate with no deduction beyond the personal exemption. That would see taxes on the wealthy rise dramatically. Musk would see tax bills in the hundreds of millions in many years.

Depends what the flat tax rate is. The top capital gains rate is 20%. I can't conceive a flat rate anywhere near that level.

 

[Mina]

Although we have a progressive tax system, in the sense that poorer people (supposedly) pay less of a percentage of their overall income in tax than wealthier people, our system is actually flat-ish. A billionaire pays the same tax rate on his first $9,950 of annual income as someone who makes $9,950 per year. True, he pays a 37% tax on income above $523k, but so does everybody else who makes $1 over $523k.

The idea of a flat tax rate on all income makes zero sense and is completely unworkable.

Sort of a side point, but I find it odd that our system effectively goes flat above a certain level. Like if it makes sense that your 10,275th dollar is taxed more than your 10,274th dollar, and that your 539,901st dollar is taxed far, far more than that, then why should your ten millionth dollar be taxed at precisely the same rate as your 539,901st? Why do we hold to the principle of progressive taxation all the way up through the ranks of the moderately wealthy, but then abandon it for the staggeringly rich? Why does a workaday doctor, lawyer, or business VP pay the same on his top dollar as, say, Elon Musk? After all, the gap between a junior partner at a big law firm and Elon Musk, is many times larger than the gap between the law firm partner and someone with zero income. Why treat the lawyer and Musk as if they were the same?

 

[Cameron]

With all due respect: BS. Most Republican/conservatives understand the need of progressive taxation. What most object to is the continual LW braying that "top earners don't pay taxes, or not enough". Basic fact is that over 50% of earners (bottom) pay no federal income tax. whereas the top 10% pay over 70% of all income tax revenue.

View attachment 67398066

Sure, Ideally, and democratically a flat rate would be most ideologically appealing, but reality gets in the way.

The top 10% pay about 70% of all income tax revenues, which certainly is a lot -- but that's because they own an even larger percentage of the country's wealth.

If you have a country where 9 people make $1 a year and 1 person makes $15 a year, and a flat tax rate of 10%, the 1 person making $15 a year would still pay about 63% of all income tax revenue.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Depends what the flat tax rate is. The top capital gains rate is 20%. I can't conceive a flat rate anywhere near that level.

There are lots of deductions with that 20%, get rid of the deductions and the flat rate would go down.

 

[Mina]

Depends what the flat tax rate is. The top capital gains rate is 20%. I can't conceive a flat rate anywhere near that level.

Yeah. A flat rate of 20% would be absolutely crushing to nearly everyone other than the super rich. Even people in the 96th-99th percentile range currently pay 15.5% average effective individual federal income tax rates, so it would be a tax hike on the bottom 99% of people, and still wouldn't pull in one extra dime on the capital gains of the very rich.

 

[Bullseye]

I've honestly never talked taxes with a single Republican who wasn't advocating for changes that would make taxes flatter, if not entirely flat? How about you. Would you alter the current tax system? If so, how would those alterations shift the distribution of tax burden?

Again a flat tax is ideological attractive but not practical for several reasons. I've seen few if any flat tax proposals in conservative literature.

Anyway, why would a flat rate be ideologically appealing, ideally and democratically? I get why it's appealing to the very rich, since any practical flat tax is a huge windfall for them, paid for by everyone else. But I think for most of us, there's no ideological appeal.

Fairness, actual, no shit, really, really FAIR. Since the top earners already average 15-20% federal tax rate; which would seem to be a bit excess to the lower 20% or 50% they would be getting a tax cut.

 

[Mina]

There are lots of deductions with that 20%, get rid of the deductions and the flat rate would go down.

The major deduction is cost basis-- that you only pay taxes on the earnings, rather than the principal. And that's pretty much an indispensable concept, economically. Another one is stepped-up basis for inherited wealth, and if you eliminated that, it would lower the rate a bit. But that's probably proportionally more of an issue for poorer people than richer ones, since a larger share of a poorer person's capital gains would be inheritance (e.g., selling mom's home after she died), rather than investment. I think that aside from those, most other deductions are pretty minimal -- stuff like special treatment for farms and small businesses and other politically favored forms of wealth. I can't think of any big deductions we could get rid of, to the kinds of capital gains the very rich enjoy, that would make a huge difference to the base rate.

 

[Bullseye]

There are lots of deductions with that 20%, get rid of the deductions and the flat rate would go down.

Actually, no there aren't - IF you make $100,000 you pay $20,000 on the gain. Now, there are deductions on other income - you're correct.

 

[Mina]

Again a flat tax is ideological attractive but not practical for several reasons. I've seen few if any flat tax proposals in conservative literature.

Fairness, actual, no shit, really, really FAIR. Since the top earners already average 15-20% federal tax rate; which would seem to be a bit excess to the lower 20% or 50% they would be getting a tax cut.

What makes you think a flat tax would be fairer? To me, it seems patently far LESS fair. In a capitalist system, money is like mass in physics, in the sense that the more of it you have in one place, the more it tends to draw to itself. That's why the long-term trend across every major capitalist nation has been wealth stratification.... the rich tend to get richer over time, because it's just easier to grow your wealth if you've already got a lot. And that's WITH progressive taxation. Even with that partial counter-balance, it's easier to grow your wealth if you're already rich. Move from that to a flat tax --or even just a flatter tax-- and you are making the system LESS fair. In other words, you're making it so you can be even less talented and diligent and get ahead if you start with money, and that you have to be even more talented and diligent to do so if you start with less money. Why move to such a patently less fair system?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Flat taxes are regressive laws designed to help the richest get even richer at expense of the poorest.

I'm not anywhere near the richest, but I don't need my taxes slashed and made up for by people who can barely put food on a table.

You live in one of the few states that have a flat income tax. I live in another, and I prefer it.

 

[Court Jester]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class.

False.

Why is it in every other aspect of our lives the left always talks about "equality", except when it comes to paying an EQUAL percentage of tax liability as everyone else?

A flat tax is a fair tax. Schemes which actually shift tax burden to wealthier people is only crass socialism, and social engineering.

But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

No, that is not what it means. What it means is that for people currently paying NO taxes, or few taxes, they will actually have to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE of the tax burden rather than punishing the wealthy with an unfair percentage.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

At least 50% of Americans pay NO Federal income tax. How is that currently fair?

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

Most of the anger at wealthy people is simply jealousy. People who insist that they deserve something special or extra, just because other people worked hard to be more successful than they are. Everybody should be treated the same, and that means a flat tax rate for everyone.

 

[Mina]

False.

Which thing are you saying false to? That Republicans tend to like flat taxes or that such taxes shift tax burden away from the rich and to others?

A flat tax is a fair tax. Schemes which actually shift tax burden to wealthier people is only crass socialism, and social engineering.

I think a flat tax needs to be understood within the context of the total economic scheme, including the way the market works and the way spending is done. For example, if the underlying system is tilted in favor of those who have money, and a progressive tax system tilts it the other way, it makes it fairer. Similarly, the underlying government spending priorities need to be considered.

That's a big difference between the US and Europe. In Europe, taxes actually tend to be LESS progressive than in the US (thanks to reliance on VAT, which is effectively flat, for a lot of revenues). But their more regulated markets make the underlying system less tilted towards the rich (e.g., more guaranteed labor protections and rights than here). Plus, the government's spending tends to tilt things more towards the poor and middle class (e.g., true universal healthcare, publicly financed higher education, heavily subsidized public transit and childcare, etc.). So, when you have an underlying economic system that's only somewhat tilted to the rich, and a spending scheme that is somewhat tilted against the rich, layering a flat tax on top of that gives you a system that, overall, is reasonably even-handed. In the US, by comparison, we have an underlying economic system that is very heavily tilted to the rich, and a spending scheme that isn't very heavily tilted against them, so even layering a progressive tax on top of that, you end up with an overall situation that's more tilted to the rich than is the case in Europe (which then shows up as a higher Gini Index).

No, that is not what it means.

Yes, it absolutely is what it means. It's simply math. You can, of course, insist that shifting the tax burden away from the rich, at the cost of raising taxes for 90% of Americans, is a good thing. If you think America is just too rough a place to be rich, and life is simply too good for 90% of people, then further enhancing the wealth of that top 10% while taking others down a peg or two is a great thing. That's a question of opinion. But whether you think that shift is good or bad is separate from first acknowledge that's what a flat tax would do: shift more of the burden away from the rich. It would be a tax hike on the large majority of Americans, in order to pay for a large tax cut for the economic elite.

 

[Mina]

Most of the anger at wealthy people is simply jealousy. People who insist that they deserve something special or extra, just because other people worked hard to be more successful than they are. Everybody should be treated the same, and that means a flat tax rate for everyone.

Consider how this would actually play out in practice. Currently, the average total federal tax rate for the bottom 20% of earners is 0% -- which is basically the net of payroll taxes and refundable tax credits. For a flat tax, that would rise to about 19.3%. In terms of effective poverty rate (poverty rate if we looked for the after-tax equivalent), we'd go from around 11.4% to around 14.4% (since you'd need to earn 1.193 times as much as the poverty threshold to remain out of effective poverty, with the government taking that 19.3%.) The policy would effective take about 10 million lower-middle-class Americans and drive them into effective poverty..... all so the 10% of earners who are already prospering the most can become even richer. And that's just the impact on the near-poor. Remember, it would hurt the bottom 90% of earners... not enough to drive most of them into effective poverty, but enough to make difficult lives harder.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Flat taxes are a nonstarter... there are, entirely by design mind you, regressive across the income quintiles but even worse than that they are completely and entirely devoid of every single practical observable articulable empirical based principle of modern economics known to mankind.

You guys are on a roll tonight.

 

[Exquisitor]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

With a flat tax one's overtime doesn't just go to pay taxes.

Raise the minimum wage and then flat tax.

To pay the bills would take 23% of GDP, every sale, every paycheck, every capital gain, everything counted in GDP.

No loopholes, no deductions, you get 2% back from 25% for filing.

 

[Exquisitor]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

Why should the Gopvernment tell me to get married and buy a house.

"It's your money, spend it how you want to." (JG Wentworth)

 

[Exquisitor]

Republicans tend to like flat taxes, since the GOP effectively works for the rich and a flat tax would shift tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. But I think some people haven't really thought through just how much it would do so. Here's some slightly dated information to illustrate that:

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average federal tax rates for all households, by comprehensive household income quintile.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Right now, the average effective individual income tax rate is 9.4%. So that means that to collect the same revenues, you'd need to set a flat tax at least at 9.4% (probably a bit higher, to account for inevitable loopholes and dodges that even flat taxes wind up having, but we'll go with 9.4%).

So, what would that mean for people? Well, if you're in the top 1% of earners, it would mean a truly MASSIVE windfall, from 23.5%. Of course they love the idea. There's a reason it's long been Steve Forbes types talking the idea up.

However, this would constitute a tax hike for those in the 0-20% group, and those in the 21-40% group, and the 41-60% group, and the 61%-80% group, and even the 81-90% percentile. In other words, it would hammer the working class and middle class and even half the upper class.

Only that last 10% of earners would see their effective tax rates fall with a flat tax. And even there, it would be a very modest improvement for the 91-95% level earners (just a two-point drop in tax rates). Very nearly all the benefit of the change would flow just to the top 5% of earners.

As a practical matter, if your household earns less than $200,000, a flat tax would wind up being a tax hike for you. The farther you are below that threshold, the bigger the tax hike it would be. From $200k-$300k of household income, it would be a small tax cut (around two points). From $300k to $500k it would be a sizable tax cut (6.1 points or so). And above $500k it would be a truly massive tax cut (over 14 points).

Do you think 25% is a fair price for the poor to pay?

Right now I don't pay anything on my $5,000, but for the life I get, I would gladly pay $1,250, really, that's what I take home after I pay back SSI and food stamps and my return. I'd probably be making $50 a month instead of $100.

How about the rich? 25% no escape, no loopholes would be more than they pay now. For the honest it would be a tax break.

How about business, can you handle 25% of sales?

Capital gains? You'll have to sell or pony up. Supply chains? What would it to to prices?

Must cover state taxes too, so we're at 33%. Two for me, one for you. The only question is how much to raise the minimum wage?

If you like tying off your penis with a sock when you're in the middle of a good piss, this'll work a lot better than passing a balanced budget amendment, or you try both at the same time.

Raise the Social Security asset level, when you raise the minimum wage too please.

I didn't hire the Democrats to do this (good luck).