Why a flat tax could benefit the United States

By Robert Kokta

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) and Representative Billy Tauzin (R-Louis.) are currently debating the merits of the flat tax versus a national sales tax in a nation-wide tour, indicating the importance that Congressional leaders place on tax reform.

In fact, defining the level and methods of taxation will frame the federal government's size and role in the next century. It is not hard to see that Americans are taxed significantly more today than ever before. When the combination of state, local, and federal income taxes consumes over 40 percent of a working individual's income, one must wonder whether it is really fair to the earner and healthy for a free society.

Some may not object to this high level of taxation, pointing to Canada and to the socialist countries in Europe, which take even more of their citizens' income. Yet I must admit that I am pro-freedom, and that I believe each American has a fundamental right to keep what he or she earns.

When the federal government requires a citizen to surrender a substantial portion of his or her income--money earned from hard work and sweat--for the purpose of funding a program that is improper, wasteful, or ineffective, the government performs a morally wrong act. Under the current system, this misappropriation occurs every April 15, and should be stopped.

While some may not agree that Americans are overtaxed, few are content with the method by which taxes are collected now. When Americans spend 5.4 billion hours per year complying with the tax code, when 50 percent of taxpayers require assistance in understanding complicated tax forms, and when the number of forms sent to the IRS yearly could circle the globe 36 times, it is difficult to argue that the current system of taxation is efficient, easily understandable, or in America's best interests. Americans want and deserve a fairer, simpler system.

Of the two most visible proposals, Armey's flat tax and Tauzin's consumption tax, the flat tax better accomplishes this goal. Although both proposals would replace the current system with a fairer method of taxation that returns power to the people, a national sales tax has several serious flaws. By taxing consumption, Washington would be effectively undermining the main source by which states obtain their revenues.

Taxing all income at a single rate, as prescribed by the Armey plan, is the simplest and fairest method. Aside from a personal exemption, under which, for example, a family of four would only pay taxes on that income received over $33,800, all other deductions and loopholes would be eliminated. All income would be taxed once, at its source, at a flat 17 percent rate.

Some argue that such an arrangement is unfair to those in the lower brackets of the current tax structure. Yet 17 percent of $55,000 is less than 17 percent of $1 million: the rich pay more than the average American, and they do so fairly. In fact, studies have shown that the flat tax would increase the total share of the tax burden paid by the rich as a result of a strong economy.

The flat tax is pro-family, pro-growth, and pro-freedom. By reducing taxes to one flat rate and taxing income only once, savings and investments would increase, thereby inducing economic growth.

Individuals and families would be allowed to keep more of what they earn. Most importantly, the flat tax would curb the power of the IRS and return spending power to the people.

As America considers changes in the tax code, we should realize that what America needs is not another complicated tax cut. We need to overhaul the entire flawed system. We need the flat tax. It's just that simple.

Robert Kokta is a sophomore in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...