In praise of a flat tax (sort of)

In order to change the tax code we must first clear out the breeding grond for taxes. By that I mean congress itself.
They live in the rarified air of Washington with its many financial perks and after a lengthy stay there they all look the same, regardless of political party.
We neeed to make service in congress more of an honorary service by people of substance who are concerned with upholding our constitution and freedom instead of electing people who go to Washington to make a living, primarily lawyers who are looking for pay, perks,retirement, then becomng lobbyist.
I suggest one 6 year term for all office holders, president, senate, and representatives.
They could not be re-elected. There would be no incumbents seeking office again.
They would draw a salary, and be given an appropriate bonus at the end of the term to express appreciation for their service, but no government retirement would be provided.
They would not become isolated in the ‘beltway’ atmosphere of Washington, but would be more representative of the man on the street.
What a change that would be!
Under this scenario I believe they would become more interested in discarding our crrent tax code and finding a better way to finance our Federal government.

Here’s a remark from a country that actually has a flat tax… well, had, until recently

I like the idea very much. It made things simpler and indeed tax advisors are looking somewhat awkward, trying to find something to do. And tax evasion has decreased, too.

Another nice idea is that people should not be punished for earning money, as is the case with income tax, rather they should be taxed for consumption (VAT). Thus, richer people, who consume more resources, pay higher taxes.

Many people feel that the wealthy should be taxed more, because they have earned their fortune “unjustly”. This might be true, but unfairness should generally be dealt with by the justice branch, not the IRS.

And help to the poor should be provided through social security or similar schemes, not by decreasing taxes for them.

Taxes are here for the Government to get the money. End of story. Any other problem should be solved through dedicated programs, not by trying to stretch and deform the tax system to cover it all.

I SAY – Vote for Steve Forbes for President.

Imagine the members of the Congress of the United States of America doing anything other than smearing, arguing with, and blocking the efforts of the other party.

Now imagine them working hard enough to pass a law that completely changes the laws they carefully crafted for their favorite Political Action Commitee. It won’t ever happen.

Congress works for (1. Themselves (2. PACs (3. Lobbiest — Not necessarily in that order.

A regular joe can vote and vote and vote in every election from now until they die and never, never elect the right person.

I used to have faith in the country I served for 20 years. The people that are supposed to “serve” us have a different master now.

I used to think it was our fault for not electing the right candidate, but there is something bigger running the assylum now.

Those who are served by government should be the ones who pay for it, as it is with any service.

Congress serves at the pleasure of those with power and influence (money) and the strongest presidential candidates are hand-selected by those with power and influence (money). Therefore it is wealth itself that should be taxed, not wages, since the government is serving that wealth.

A good start would be a national property tax to replace the existing system. The wealthy hold extremely valuable real estate; the poor own none but work for wages to buy food and gasoline and pay rent. Wages, food, and gasoline should not be taxed; assets should.

And overall the government is way too large and way too expensive and wastes resources doing business with itself. Government could easily be 1/10 as large and cost 1/10 as much, but it is setup to perpetuate and engorge itself since those who are actually served by it aren’t paying for it, the masses are.

Wow, Great Comments on both sides of the spectrum.

My problems with a flat VAT / Sales Tax – someone making $1Million p/year will not necessarily spend as much on ‘taxable’ purchases as a % of their income as someone making $50K p/year. Again, this consumption tax would not be fair to the lower/middle class unless there was a ‘luxury’ tax on high end items (which would never happen).

You can’t blame the tax professionals for the antiquated and moronic tax laws on the books. They are paid to lower the AGI of their clients.

You CAN blame the tax lobby.

A flat tax could work, but if instituted would be perverted by special interest (government tax credits) and common interest (home mortgage interest/tax dedcution) groups.

The AMT over time will get us as close to a flat tax as we’re ever going to get.

I think John in Nashville doesn’t get it. If I go to school more, make better decisions and make more money, why should I be penalized for success. “b/c I can afford it?” I think 9th grade civics calls this socialism. Fair means “equal” for everything liberal except taxes.

From an earlier comment: “Federal taxes are overwhelmingly paid by higher income earners, you can look it up. The top 20% pay about 67% of the federal taxes that are collected…. Source NY Times article from January 2007.”

This is a completely misleading statistic. The issue is not what percent of the total tax revenue comes from high earners, it’s what percent of a higher earners income is paid. Example: if person A makes $900,000/year and pays 10% in taxes, and person B makes $10,000/year and pays 100% in taxes, person A has still paid 90% of the total tax revenue from these two people. It’s an extreme and unrealistic example, but it makes the point. In reality, low-income earners do pay less, but middle-income earners pay significantly higher than high-income earners, as a percentage of their salary. Warren Buffett has spoken extensively about this phenomenon, and whenever he talks about it, somebody retorts with this same irrelavent statistic. High earners provide most of the revenue IN SPITE OF the tax code, not because of it.

The current Income Tax System we have started out as a “FLAT TAX”, and look where we are now! The government does not need to know what every American’s income is. That is not any of their business. So, I am in favor of a “FLAT TAX” that is not based on income, and it is called the “FAIRTAX”, HR23. This is a retail sales tax at the final sale of a new product of 23 cents per dollar spent. With the elimination of the Income Tax we Americans and American Businesses will not incur the hidden costs and burden of complying with the Income Tax and this will reduce the cost of products.

Federal taxes are overwhelmingly paid by higher income earners, you can look it up. The top 20% pay about 67% of the federal taxes that are collected. The bottom 40% of income earners typically pay zero. Source NY Times article from January 2007.

(2)
That being said, there is no point to the complexity in the tax code. As mentioned in other comments, the problem is figuring out WHAT is taxable not HOW MUCH the tax rate is.

I’d like to see a multi-pronged solution that simplifies everything. Taxing all income and capital gains at 10% with no deductions for anything or anyone, and a 5% federal sales tax on everything (except food bought at a grocery store) would about do it.

The tax breaks in today’s code have been bought & paid for by the special interests with their campaign contributions. Nobody is going to change that without a fight, a very costly fight.

yo eric,

when they talk about a ‘flat tax’ they are not talking about sales tax. they are talking about income taxes.

income taxes and sales taxes are different and sales taxes will never be flat….PERIOD!

Unless Mr. Lashinsky is willing forego all of the tax perk’s that are built in to the tax code (e.g., mortgage interest deductions, 401(k) contributions, etc., etc. etc.), he has no room to complain that other, possibly more influent individuals, may also arrange their affairs to minimize their own taxes. In fact, thanks to Justice Learned Hand, it is a long standing principal of federal tax law that no taxpayer is obligated to arrange his affairs to maximize his taxes. If he has a gripe about the Code’s complexity – then the real culprits sit on Capitol Hill, not in the tens or hundrends of thousands of professional’s offices that try to make sense out of the complexity that is the current federal income tax law.

Looking at our tax system is needed, but a HUGE task and would not only cost our government millions, it would cost private money millions along with all the accountants and software that needs to get updated along with the new rules.

Who will take this financial hit? The consumer, so I am against any revamp of our tax system and more for small incremental change, otherwise it will be toooooo costly and most of us will not be around to claim the benefits of the revamp.

Similar to break even analysis for investing, by the time the consumer starts to benefit, it will be 30 years out. (good for our kids however, maybe).

Thanks!
Jorge of http://www.123-Easy-Credit.com/talk

Instead of insulting the “bottom-feeders” perhaps you should target our law makers.

Reagan’s 1986 tax reform law did nothing for me except to raise the amount of taxes I paid and lowered the taxes the wealthiest paid.

I hear politicians espouse their theories of creating a fair tax system and then get elected and presto, they loose their “moral compass”, pass another loophole, get bought out by lobbyists (by the way I believe these are the “bottom feeders”) and further complicate a complicated tax system.

There is no one (that I can see) in the horizon that will tackle the tax system honestly without an agenda.

It’s a sad commentary on our form of government but when you see so many congressmen get snared in unethical and dishonest actions, you get to wonder how journalists like yourself were so late in discovering the damages that were done.

So instead of watching, why not do some investigative reporting?

We already have a flat tax.

It is called “AMT” and is calculated as a flat % of your income, with certain common deductions disallowed.

If you are in AMT, you are paying a flat tax. And it is sooooo popular that politicians are falling all over themselves to see who can say they were the one to get rid of it. The same politicians that whine about the complexity of the tax code and still manage to find 20 things to add to it every year to make it worse.

What we need isn’t a flat tax, but a flat tax RATE. $200 from someone making $800 a month isn’t nearly the same cost as $200 from someone making $8,000 a month. However, 10% of the paycheck affects the minimum wage worker with the same intensity as the millionaire..

I think the government should continue to tax the masses into poverty. The masses are gullible and they will clap and cheer for anyone with a good enough message and a clean smile. The masses are ignorant, lazy, ugly, weak, and annoying.

Taxing the majority of the folks that do the grunt work makes sense. They will never be wise enough to know that they are getting robbed blind. The rich will always have lawyers, accountants, and financial wizards at their disposal to help them save money. The rich should continue to get rich and the poor should continue to bask in their own incompetence.

Just thought of something that would be very entertaining. My mother is 65 and has now done tax returns for more than thirty years. I would love to watch you run from her after you told her, to her face, that she is a “bottom-feeder.” Idiot!

To Randy:

You’re right, there is indeed nothing inherently wrong with a progressive tax code. What most people have a problem with is that what looks simple (the more money you make the more you pay) has been terribly twisted and distorted so that in the end that’s not how it works out. What people are saying is that the loopholes make it so that the people who should be paying the most sometimes end up paying the LEAST.

Yes government spending is a huge problem, and congress is typically very self-serving and wasteful, but that does not mean that the tax system does not need some serious overhauls.

I find it hard to believe that the current system is “fine” when you have tax professionals weighing in here that AGREE there is a problem with the current system.

To the CPA’s and other “outraged” tax professionals responding here:

You cannot claim complete ignorance and hide behind “we don’t write the tax code.” That’s just rediculous. You are part of a very large industry with a very powerful lobby. In this day in age, lobbies with this much power play a substantial role in legislation, legislation that benefits the people they represent. So whether or not you are active in lobbying for your industry, you’re a part of it and unfortunatelly you might (whether right or wrong) get lumped in with the people cuasing the problem.

The tax code that will do this country the most good is the one that makes it mroe efficient to simply pay a given amount of tax as opposed to spending considerable resources to avoid paying.

Someone earlier commented that the tax code is used to promote social good by encouraging building in certain areas, saving, investing long term etc. Unfortunatelly the same rules that allow for those special circumstances that promote overall social good also allow for special circumstances letting a very specific group avoid taxes, with no other positive purpose.

It will be a substantial challenge to keep the good things and do away with the bad, I’m not sure it could ever be accomplished.

I am surprised no one has pointed out the ultimate tax is dying in the service of this country – after all, once one is dead, one never has the opportunity to be taxed for mere money.

Some nutjobs insist on calling the estate tax a “death tax”. It is not; dying in combat situations is a true death tax.

But this column is about income tax. Our income taxes are trivial. I do resent the time it takes filling out the 1040 because I have to account for all my income and … darn, where are those records ?

Adam, right on, man! There are several million people who’s entire job in our economy is “tax compliance”. They are a massive drag on our potential. If we make the tax much easier to comply with, then we free up more people to do real work like creating a product or useful service. Sure there would still be a few people in the tax business, but it would be far, far less. And we have evidence from former communist countries that a flat tax jump starts economic growth.

I guess we will have to become the socialists, and let the capitalist russians and chinese surpass us economically before people wake up in this country.

I am a CPA and over the years have prepared many returns. One thing that I always find interesting is the need for a flat tax. The progressiveness of our income tax is not the problem; how hard is it to take your taxable income times the applicable percentage? The complication is from the multitude of deductions, credits, and nontaxable items you have to add or subtract to get to your taxable income. But again, this is not caused by progressive tax rates which is really all the term “flat tax” addresses.

In 1969 a 1st yr accountant at PW&Co in NYC had a salary 9.5-10.5M and fica withheld was about $280 on $5,400 .. now if the start sal= $55,000 the fica w/h = $4,200+ or a 15X increase on 5.5x salary … The income tax rates were higher but if the flat tax does not include FICA/MED then how flat would it be? And if it does, what will the Rate be? Just food for thought.

Read up on the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Reagan & house democrats raise the lowest rate, lower the highest rate, and get rid of a bunch of deductions. As taxes go, it was pretty flat with two main rates: 15% and 28%, and they applied to both ordinary income and capital gains.

BTW tax reform would not get rid of accountants, because people who own a business and/or lots of investments will always have a complicated situation. Most everyone else can use TurboTax or even just the EZ form.

Read the fair tax book and you will find it is not a “fair” tax at all. The IRS would have to be replaced with business tax auditors to make sure the companies are collecting and remitting properly. In addition, all those willing to pay an additional 23% for all purchases of new items (including homes) raise your hand. All those who believe companies will reduce their prices to compensate for the potential reduction in federal (remember this a federal issue only and not applicable to states)taxes raise your hand. The fair tax calls for prebates to be mailed to all Americans based on their income so the “fair tax” becomes fair to them and not a recessive tax. Imagine the increased need for federal employees to send out all of the checks and deal with the problems. As with others here, the issue must come from Americans willing to force the Congress to cut back spending. Why will it never happen? Americans only want to cut back on what someone else is getting. Personal greed is universal. Why not increase tariffs on goods coming in from foreign countries? Seems like we have a consistent trade imbalance with many countries. There are lots of solutions but no politicians with fortitude and few Americans with a passion about income tax change. Call your Senator and Congressman.

A completely revamped taxaxtion system would be a great thing for America and would provide many benefits. However, a flat tax has nothing to do with this. The hard part is figuring out how much income there is to tax, not applying a particular marginal or flat tax rate. One example of how to make a large difference for little effort would be to copy Sweden where the government issues tax software, and provided you report everything, the software always gets it right as it is government issue.

In response to someone who noted that we don’t need a flat tax on all income, I agree. We need a flat tax on all spending. Let’s have business take our taxes out for us at the cash register. That way no one evades taxes, no one can lie about how much money they made and it would save us a ton of money as a nation. Do away with the majority of the IRS, do away with tax return filing, and give businesses a reason to stay in the US. Companies could cut out a lot of jobs which are now devoted to preparing and sending out W-2’s, and since they won’t be paying income taxes, they can sell their products for much cheaper and afford to pay their employees more. Do you know that the tax rate for a large corporation can be 40% or more? Anyway, I know it would be complicated because the government’s income would not be very predictable, but in the long run, I think it is the best thing for our country.

Many of you are taking this far to personally. Frankly, whether you like it or not, whether its true or not, the perception is that tax attorneys and accountants are considered as bottom feeders. Many of your ilk are looking for ways to cheat the the system legally or not. And if your not violating the law, you certainly work to violate the spirit of it. One has to look no further than the dubious dealings of once prestigious firms accounting firm Andersen and the whole Enron mess. If your not involved in the stink, it certainly has rubbed off on you.

I’m in favor of a flat tax but only if it is a “transaction” tax. If applied correctly, it would eliminate almost every other form of sneaky tax on the books.

The tax, obviously, would apply to transactions and that would include Wall Street transactions thereby eliminating capital gains taxes. It would apply only on the “buy” portion of the transaction, not on the “sell” for an individual. Of course, for the new buyer, it would appear again on the “buy”.

Two advantages would be to eliminate the marginal trading that goes on today (cost would exceed short term profit) and make it of value to maintain a position for a significant period of time to recoup the tax.

Because it would be a universal tax, the rate could be low, probably around the 5% level.

Few, if any of the average people would complain, each knowing they were taxed equally on their purchases only and that savings would not be impaired.

And it could encourage or force people to get out of the underground economy (cash) because they would “pay as they went”.

The term “flat tax” is a disguise. It will be used to eliminate tax on all investment income, including rental income. The Texas oil millionaires will win again. We have already eliminated their estate taxes. Now they will be able to live tax free, with those of us being paid by wages and salaries footing the entire U.S. tax bill.

Why have any tax at all? The income tax used to be a temporary measure, usually in times of war. We’re not officially at war now, so why tax us? Seriously, if we didn’t have troops all over the world our government wouldn’t need our money so much. Still, if they didn’t get our money they’d just print more anyway so I guess it is a moot point.

Why don’t the critics of our current tax system ever consider the benefits to society that are a direct or indirect product of tax law such as providing incentives for home ownership, encouraging taxpayers to participate in retirement plans, giving tax breaks to companies for research and development efforts, hiring employees that may have some baggage following them, opening offices, plants, warehouses, etc. in economically disadvantaged locations, relieving a significant amount of the cost of assisting the less fortunate by providing deductions for charitable contributions to qualified organizations.

Tax law is not strictly about generating revenue for Uncle Sam.

I am an accountant, and I have a really low opinion of journalists also. I think they should either get a real job or stop distorting the facts.

A Consumption Tax or Federal Sales Tax would go a long way in leveling the playing field in making everyone pay some tax. But with all tax law changes
there will be methods to avoid it created by finance professionals and many transactions would go underground as well as start black market transactions.

As a CPA with over 30 years experience in individual taxation at all income levels, I am of the opinion that the current system is degrading to the American taxpayer. A flat tax and VAT combo makes so much sense to me that it pains me to think it will never happen. Future generations do not deserve to endure what we currently have.

Noted that such a thing as a “Flat rate tax on ALL income” stirs up the area where all the bottom feeders of the tax code live.. and of course they then muddy up the waters in their sea of self righteousness indignations as to how they are saving the nation. The upper 5% just love the “Fair Tax” AKA fed sales tax.. and few discuss how much that REALLY costs the commoners when state tax piled on.. but very good chance there would be a lot of loopholes in that one.. and it seems that one more time..those that benefit and hide behind the nations flags and special interest laws.. would prefer such.
But at flat tax ON ALL INCOMES.. from what I read could be tiered and run less then 10% for everyone.. say 7,8,9% and actually bring in more then the thousands of pages of welfare plan (tax codes) now out there. I do not call the legions that feed off tax codes as cheats etc.. but am amused at how they righteously state “it is congress that did it”… as if they di d not write the various thousands of pages of tax codes, send check to DC and tell them “congress sign here” and the Bill “was passed by congress” etc. The term usually reserved for such folks in working world is “Overhead”.AKA they do not do much but drive up the costs.. to us all. So would most of usa do a “let’s see now,made $40K and that times .08 is 3200 and that is that.. either mail in for refund or send check. or horror horrors.. owe of pay NOTHING more… and all the “Overheads” and they suck off millions in fees, consulting etc. might make it such that usa business would do business..rather consult tax codes for what to do next.. and ALL income taxed.. if system so fair now or under “Fair Tax”..got to ask why those getting the special treatment of 15% MAX brackets.. are not lined up to only pay say..9%? Gee I wonder why???

I am an Attorney, and have come to the conclusion that there is no “correct way” to do your taxes anymore. If you can argue it with enough Attorneys behind you-It will fly. Even if that means the Super-Rich aren’t paying much or any taxes(which they aren’t). A flat tax would certainly end this, and, I would love to see a lot of bad Lawyers working at McDonalds. It Won’t Happen untill the whole thing colapses.

Certainly the tax code needs to be trashed…

I agree with Eric and Brian. We need to tax consumption, not income. Call it the Fair Tax or national sales tax or whatever. The weakness of the US dollar is partially a reflection of unbridled borrowing and spending, aka. consumption.

BTW, the flat tax is not the same as taxing consumption with a national sales tax.

Bottom feeders? Dude grow up. Currently the tax system has many ways for you to claim deductions. Is it the fault of the bottom feeding lawyers that such a system exists? They are only performing a function that is needed by those who employ them.

Pushing up the cost of business? Qualify that statement. The lawyers are confusing matters? You learned nothing when talking with these lawyers. They are actually explaining the confusing legislation to their clients, that were initially drafted by the Weights & Measures committee.

Adam please present facts in your future rants.

A flat tax is the right direction to get rid of unwanted government intervention in our economy via giveaways in the tax code. One with a standard deduction that continues to decrease if the budget is not balanced would be something the average tax payer would understand.

I can’t believe you all are talking about a flat tax when there is so much support for the “Fair Tax” Please check it out!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Never say never.

Congress wasn’t the first–they were led there by lawyers-turned-lobbyists seeking more benefits and loopholes for their kind. Congress just woke up to the benefits of playing ball with them.

Um, when thieves try to rob your house, do you blame your security company because you need its protection?

That’s pretty much the logic you are applying here. The reason smart, energetic people become tax lawyers is because the tax system makes that job really valuable. But calling them “cheats” isn’t really accurate is it?

You’re completely correct that a flat tax that put all of these guys into alternative employment would be better for our society but blaming the victims for not wanting to be robbed by the government isn’t exactly a fair point.

When you and your colleagues begin to actively, vocally support it, write about it, study it, then maybe we can see it thru in our lifetime. Congress “estimates” a “cost” to the treasury…a non governmental agency…a private entity…whereas the 3 books on the flat tax show huge savings and surpluses. And yes I would love to see the smart people who spend their time creating tax avoidance apply their talents to say…world hunger…or other areas of our lives.

With the Tidal Wave of Baby Boomers headed for a fixed income, and finally getting out of the Income Taxable category over the next 20 years, I would not be surprised at all if a flat tax passes. It would effectively tax the Boomers Social Security and 401K incomes as they spend it, just when they started thinking they would have some of their tax burden lifted after working all of their lives. If a flat tax passes it would certainly be the “crime of the century” and I would not put it past the Federal Government to do just that!

I’m a supply sider so I’m all for a flat tax or a national sales tax. I disagree with the author regarding whether or not real tax reform will ever take place in this country. It will pass only if the politicians believe they will lose their office if they don’t support it. Of course, I must admit, most Americans snoozed right through Econ 101 and 102 so you can’t expect much outrage from people if they don’t know they’re getting robbed blind.

We won’t ever see a flat tax. Special interest is driving the country.

Owning a company, I see the flip side and it’s exactly correct that the tax loopholes are designed to make the rich richer. I would rather pay alot more via a Flat Tax, then pay some tax lawyer to find the loopholes and save some money. Yes, I would rather pay more taxes then deal with lawyers, accountants and loopholes every year.

A flat tax (national sales tax) would be wonderful. Why? Because you can control your taxation level directly.

The second huge reason to support a flat sales tax is that every time the taxation level changes, everyone sees it on every receipt. There would be no hiding taxes in arcane tax laws, there would be no loopholes. Everyone takes from the government, thus, everyone should pay.

As a CPA (I don’t know if I fall into the category of “accountant” or “other deadbeat schemer”) I usually read the articles about taxes in magazines and websites such as this. The one thing that strikes me is that the writer of the article very seldom has a basic grasp of the topic on which they are writing. Mr. Lashinsky proves my point once again. Let’s throw out the rhetoric and look at the plan put forth by Fred Thompson. His plan gives taxpayers a choice between a flat tax and the current code. You would be an idiot if you didn’t calculate your taxes both ways to see which was cheaper. So now in addition to computing your taxes the way you do now, under Thompson’s plan, you would have to do yet another calculation. Every time there is a tax “simplification” plan, it always comes out more complex than before. The only real solution is to control spending and with 535 members of Congress along with several thousand lobbyists, that will never happen. If by some miracle the Thompson plan ever gets into law, and Mr. Lashinsky’s premise that I would be out of a job should come true, I am hereby submitting my application to be a writer for Fortune, you apparently need someone who knows something about taxes.

Mr. Lashinsky:

Thanks for lumping many hard-working accountants, tax preparers and tax planners in with your “bottom-feeders.” As a CPA with a small tax practice, I really appreciate your generalization that says all of us are basically worthless. Tax laws are written by politicians, not us.
Whether we are helping a poor, working parent catch up on three years of returns or helping some “rich” folks legally pay the least amount of income tax possible, we probably will always be held in higher regard than tabloid writers like yourself.

What about the crooks in Congress that legislate tax law? Seems like they started being crooks first.

I agree with the author 100%. Especially the part about us not seeing a flat tax in our lifetimes. One of the saddest things about this is that we theoretically live in a democracy where our leaders should be advocating for the majority. I feel very confident that a national poll would show widespread support for this type of tax plan. So the message here is that the small minority of tax attornies and others that benefit from our current convuluted scheme apparently have a disproportionate amount of influence over these types of policies. Imagine that, special interests driving our government. What a shocker?

The good news is that states are not as beholding to these special interests and have started ammending their tax policies to be more consumption oriented. This is somewhat the same thing and a good idea. Maybe the feds will get the message, … nah.

You are an idiot. What do you mean by ‘cheat the government out of its revenue’? Are you mad? They need to stop confiscating the money we work for and stop wasting so much on needless programs and interest on the debt. You think the problem is tax lawyers? The problem is politicians who only want to be re-elected and must fight for more government projects for their districts or states. Taxation is not the issue. Spending is the issue.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a progresseive tax code and there is nothing particularly advantageous about a flat tax code. Talking about taxes is a red herring. It keeps people from addressing the real issue of endless government spending and borrowing.