same for both individuals and businesses. So, the ultimate goal of the flat rate income tax would be to increase incentives to earn higher incomes. However, the economist Neil Buchanan, in his article A users guide to proposals to replace the U.S. tax system and strangle fiscal policy, examines the plan further and writes, To pay for those deductions, a revenue-neutral plan must offer a combination of lower basic exemptions and/or a higher fiat rate on all taxable income. Revenue neutrality requires the tax rate to be roughly 21 percent, although most politicians claim that the rate will be in the mid-teens. Here we see that the flat rate would be raised for all taxpayers to make up for the loss of revenue due to eliminated deductions. Buchanan later writes, One of the most dishonest features of the flat tax is the name itself. By drawing attention to the single tax rate that is part of most such proposals, the public is led to believe that the complexity of the current tax code is caused by its graduated rates. This is patently absurd. The whole idea of the flat tax is to reduce complexity of the tax code and boost the economy. However, the flat rate would not accomplish this goal. Buchanan sums up his opinion of the tax as he states, calling this the Flat Tax exposes the true agenda behind this proposal: shift the tax burden downwardthe country would be moving to a system in which a person with a million dollars in annual income would find their next dollar of labor income taxed at a maximum of, say, 17 percent instead of the current 39.6%. The flat-rate income tax is obviously riddled with holes and would create an unfair and unjust system.The next view on tax reform does not deal with the legislation that would completely overhaul the current system. Instead, the other side to the issue comes from factions that believe that large-scale tax reform is not necessary. It certainly seems that tax reform is currently importan...
