The Internal Revenue service has become one of the most, if not the most, feared and abusive agencies in American government today. Recent congressional hearings have documented what we've long suspected: that abuse of power by the IRS is rampant and that tax penalties are applied inconsistently and unfairly. And yet it's hardly possible for the IRS to be anything but the monster it is, given the morass of complexity which make up our tax laws. There are over 100,000 pages of tax regulations and publications in our current system. The recent tax bill did nothing to improve this situation. Indeed, that hefty bag of tax candy, while it distributed lots of goodies to various special interests, actually made things worse.

Currently, businesses and citizens in the United States spend $75 billion every year to prepare their taxes. Harder to quantify is the amount of time Americans waste sweating over their tax returns. I strongly favor, for individuals at least, a completely flat tax and elimination of almost all, if not all, deductions. The only fair tax is a flat one. Most people object to this idea at first. I first heard of it about ten years ago. It took several years for me to see how much sense it made. If you still don't like it, please consider two cases where "flat" rates of contribution have been used and with which few people disagree:

• The social security tax. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income.
• Biblical guidelines for tithing (the guy with the nice tent and three wives didn't have to contribute 28% of his income, for example, to the temple; he was asked to give 10%, the same as everybody else).

There's a popular objection to a flat tax: that people making less need the money more than do rich people. Most flat tax plans currently in serious discussion include a substantial "entry point" below which you would pay nothing (Dick Armey's plan, for example, allows a family of four to make up to $36,000 a year without paying any taxes). The main problem with this objection is that it overlooks the main point: the whole point of using a single percentage to calculate everyone's taxes is that it's inherently fair. The rich, in fact, would pay far more taxes with a flat tax, because they would not have access to all of the loopholes which currently pervade our system and keep accountants healthily employed.

Another objection, and a valid one, is that the flat rate might be set too high. I argue that it's easier for our taxes to be raised now because the current tax code hits different groups of taxpayers in different ways. We are splintered into a thousand different groups, with little common interest. If, on the other hand, every single taxpayer in the United States payed a flat tax rate of 17% and Congress tried to raise it to 18%, you'd see a populace united in opposing it -- unless it were for a good reason, such as to raise funds in wartime.

Our current tax system punishes success, rewards failure, and guarantees abuse. Let's simplify the tax code, strip away most of the IRS's power, and implement a flat tax we can pay using a form the size of a postcard. We'll all benefit.

Home

All contents ã Copyright David T. Jarvis 1997