The flat tax could be made viable if there was a large enough deduction. If there were NO taxes or social security deductions for the part of an individual’s income that was essential for food, shelter, clothing and health care, the flat tax would work and be reasonably fair. There should not even be property taxes on the portion of a person’s property that is absolutely essential for shelter. These deductions would have to be several times larger than the current deductions.
A person with opulent wealthy accumulates wealth easily because most of his income can be invested to make more money. A person with average wealth struggles because government takes so much from the income stream that is absolutely essential for food, clothing, shelter, clothing and health care.
Near most metropolitan cities, a family of four would require that NO taxes or social security deductions be taken from the first $50,000 worth of income. That family would also require that the first $200,000 worth of property that he owned have NO property taxes. The actual amount would vary from state to state and from area to area.
After these deductions, a family could invest the remainder of their income. It would be possible. Consequently, they have a level playing field with those of opulent wealth, with one exception. Those with opulent wealth still don’t have to spend the majority of their income on food, shelter, clothing and health. However, the playing field has been sufficiently leveled that the taxes and social security contributions could flat for the remainder of their income for both those with average wealth and those with opulent wealth.
The tax rate for the opulently wealthy would probably increase by 5%. This change in the method of taxation would provide a considerable stimulus to the economy. Those with incomes under $100,000 would see a substantial reduction in their tax liability. People could even afford to retire, if they could buy a small property that had no property taxes.