Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif

No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay, I'm going to break the cardinal rule of discussion boards and post a question without having spent even 1 second lurking first.

My own ideal tax would be a flat tax combined with a personal exemption double the poverty guideline. For example, the government has calculated the poverty guideline as follows for 2005:
`+--------------+-------------------+----------+----------+| Persons in   |  48 Contiguous    |          |          || Family Unit  |  States and D.C.  |  Alaska  |  Hawaii  |+--------------+-------------------+----------+----------+|     1        |      \$ 9,570      |  \$11,950 |  \$11,010 ||     2        |       12,830      |   16,030 |   14,760 ||     3        |       16,090      |   20,110 |   18,510 ||     4        |       19,350      |   24,190 |   22,260 |+--------------+-------------------+----------+----------+`
Why double? Because I arbitrarily decided that a person earning only \$19K/year is already so poor he shouldn't have to pay tax. Same for a family of 4 with only \$38K. But perhaps it should be less than double -- and this leads to my question.

My question is this: If we were to switch to a flat tax, with the exemptions I've suggested, what would the tax rate have to be for this change to be revenue neutral?

I've love to be able to plug these numbers into a spreadsheet and say, "Okay, if we make the person exemption exactly equal to poverty, then the tax rate will need to be X percent, but if we raise the exemption to 150% of poverty, then it'd have to be Y%, and at 200% of poverty the tax rate would have to be Z%.

### Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.