Flat tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. A true flat tax would be a proportional tax, but implementations are often progressive and sometimes regressive depending on deductions and exemptions in the tax base. There are various tax systems that are labeled "flat tax" even though they are significantly different.

Major categories[edit]

Flat tax proposals differ in how the subject of the tax is defined.

True flat rate income tax[edit]

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions.

Marginal flat tax[edit]

Where deductions are allowed, a 'flat tax' is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that, above the maximum deduction, the marginal rate on all further income is constant. Such a tax is said to be marginally flat above that point. The difference between a true flat tax and a marginally flat tax can be reconciled by recognizing that the latter simply excludes certain types of income from being defined as taxable income; hence, both kinds of tax are flat on taxable income.

Flat tax with limited deductions[edit]

Modified flat taxes have been proposed which would allow deductions for a very few items, while still eliminating the vast majority of existing deductions. Charitable deductions and home mortgage interest are the most discussed examples of deductions that would be retained, as these deductions are popular with voters and are often used. Another common theme is a single, large, fixed deduction. This large fixed deduction would compensate for the elimination of various existing deductions and would simplify taxes, having the side-effect that many (mostly low income) households will not have to file tax returns.

Hall–Rabushka flat tax[edit]

Designed by economists at the Hoover Institution, Hall–Rabushka is a flat tax on consumption.[1] Principally, Hall–Rabushka accomplishes a consumption tax effect by taxing income and then excluding investment. Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka have consulted extensively in designing the flat tax systems in Eastern Europe.

Negative income tax[edit]

The negative income tax (NIT), which Milton Friedman proposed in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, is a type of flat tax. The basic idea is the same as a flat tax with personal deductions, except that when deductions exceed income, the taxable income is allowed to become negative rather than being set to zero. The flat tax rate is then applied to the resulting "negative income," resulting in a "negative income tax" that the government would owe to the household—unlike the usual "positive" income tax, which the household owes the government.

For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be $20,000 per adult and $7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making $54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making $74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.20 × (74,000 − 54,000) = $4,000, as would be the case under a flat tax system with deductions. Families of four earning less than $54,000 per year, however, would experience a "negative" amount of tax (that is, the family would receive money from the government instead of paying to the government). For example, if the family earned $34,000 a year, it would receive a check for $4,000. The NIT is intended to replace not just the USA's income tax, but also many benefits low income American households receive, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The NIT is designed to avoid the welfare trap—effective high marginal tax rates arising from the rules reducing benefits as market income rises. An objection to the NIT is that it is welfare without a work requirement. Those who would owe negative tax would be receiving a form of welfare without having to make an effort to obtain employment. Another objection is that the NIT subsidizes industries employing low-cost labor, but this objection can also be made against current systems of benefits for the working poor.

Capped flat tax[edit]

A capped flat tax is one in which income is taxed at a flat rate until a specified cap amount is reached. For example, in 2014, the United States Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $117,000 of gross compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $7,254).[2] This cap has the effect of turning a nominally flat tax into a regressive tax.[3]

Requirements for a fully defined schema[edit]

In devising a flat tax system, several recurring issues must be enumerated, principally with deductions and the identification of when money is earned.

Defining when income occurs[edit]

Since a central tenet of the flat tax is to minimize the compartmentalization of incomes into myriad special or sheltered cases, a vexing problem is deciding when income occurs. This is demonstrated by the taxation of interest income and stock dividends. The shareholders own the company and so the company's profits belong to them. If a company is taxed on its profits, then the funds paid out as dividends have already been taxed. It's a debatable question if they should subsequently be treated as income to the shareholders and thus subject to further tax. A similar issue arises in deciding if interest paid on loans should be deductible from the taxable income since that interest is in-turn taxed as income to the loan provider.[4] There is no universally agreed answer to what is fair. For example, in the United States, dividends are not deductible[5] but mortgage interest is deductible.[6] Thus a Flat Tax proposal is not fully defined until it differentiates new untaxed income from a pass-through of already taxed income.

Policy administration[edit]

Taxes, in addition to providing revenue, can be potent instruments of policy. For example, it is common for governments to encourage social policy such as home insulation or low income housing with tax credits rather than constituting a ministry to implement these policies.[7] In a flat tax system with limited deductions such policy administration, mechanisms are curtailed. In addition to social policy, flat taxes can remove tools for adjusting economic policy as well. For example, in the United States, short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains as means to promote long-term investment horizons and damp speculative fluctuation.[8] Thus, if one assumes that government should be active in policy decisions such as this, then claims that flat taxes are cheaper/simpler to administer than others are incomplete until they factor in costs for alternative policy administration.

Minimizing deductions[edit]

In general, the question of how to eliminate deductions is fundamental to the flat tax design; deductions dramatically affect the effective "flatness" in the tax rate. Perhaps the single biggest necessary deduction is for business expenses. If businesses were not allowed to deduct expenses, businesses with a profit margin below the flat tax rate could never earn any money since the tax on revenues would always exceed the earnings. For example, grocery stores typically earn pennies on every dollar of revenue; they could not pay a tax rate of 25% on revenues unless their markup exceeded 25%. Thus, corporations must be able to deduct operating expenses even if individual citizens cannot. A practical dilemma now arises as to identifying what is an expense for a business.[9] For example, if a peanut butter producer purchases a jar manufacturer, is that an expense (since they have to purchase jars somehow) or a sheltering of their income through investment? Flat tax systems can differ greatly in how they accommodate such gray areas. For example, the "9-9-9" flat tax proposal would allow businesses to deduct purchases but not labor costs.[10] (This effectively taxes labor-intensive industrial revenue at a higher rate.[11]) How deductions are implemented will dramatically change the effective total tax, and thus the flatness of the tax.[4] Thus, a flat tax proposal is not fully defined unless the proposal includes a differentiation between deductible and non-deductible expenses.

Tax effects[edit]

Diminishing marginal utility[edit]

Flat tax benefits higher income brackets progressively due to decline in marginal value.[12] For example, if a flat tax system has a large per-citizen deductible (such as the "Armey" scheme below), then it is a progressive tax. As a result, the term Flat Tax is actually a shorthand for the more proper marginally flat tax.[4]

Administration and enforcement[edit]

One type of flat tax would be imposed on all income once; at the source of the income. Hall and Rabushka (1995) includes a proposed amendment to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that would implement the variant of the flat tax they advocate.[13] This amendment, only a few pages long, would replace hundreds of pages of statutory language (although most statutory language in taxation statutes is not directed at specifying graduated tax rates).

As it now stands, the U.S. Internal Revenue Code is over several million words long, and contains many loopholes, deductions, and exemptions which, advocates of flat taxes claim, render the collection of taxes and the enforcement of tax law complicated and inefficient.

It is further argued that current tax law slows economic growth by distorting economic incentives, and by allowing, even encouraging, tax avoidance. With a flat tax, there are fewer incentives than in the current system to create tax shelters, and to engage in other forms of tax avoidance.

Flat tax critics contend that a flat tax system could be created with many loopholes, or a progressive tax system without loopholes, and that a progressive tax system could be as simple, or simpler, than a flat tax system. A simple progressive tax would also discourage tax avoidance.

Under a pure flat tax without deductions, every tax period a company would make a single payment to the government covering the taxes on the employees and the taxes on the company profit.[14] For example, suppose that in a given year, a company called ACME earns a profit of 3 million, spends 2 million in wages, and spends 1 million on other expenses that under the tax law is taxable income to recipients, such as the receipt of stock options, bonuses, and certain executive privileges. Given a flat rate of 15%, ACME would then owe the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (3M + 2M + 1M) × 0.15 = 900,000. This payment would, in one fell swoop, settle the tax liabilities of ACME's employees as well as the corporate taxes owed by ACME. Most employees throughout the economy would never need to interact with the IRS, as all tax owed on wages, interest, dividends, royalties, etc. would be withheld at the source. The main exceptions would be employees with incomes from personal ventures. The Economist claims that such a system would reduce the number of entities required to file returns from about 130 million individuals, households, and businesses, as at present, to a mere 8 million businesses and self-employed.[15]

However, this simplicity depends on the absence of deductions of any kind being allowed (or at least no variability in the deductions of different people). Furthermore, if income of differing types are segregated (e.g., pass-through, long term cap gains, regular income, etc.) then complications ensue. For example, if realized capital gains were subject to the flat tax, the law would require brokers and mutual funds to calculate the realized capital gain on all sales and redemption. If there were a gain, a tax equal to 15% of the amount of the gain would be withheld and sent to the IRS. If there were a loss, the amount would be reported to the IRS. The loss would offset gains, and then the IRS would settle up with taxpayers at the end of the period. Lacking deductions, this scheme cannot be used to implement economic and social policy indirectly by tax credits and thus, as noted above, the simplifications to the government's revenue collection apparatus might be offset by new government ministries required to administer those policies.


The Russian Federation is considered a prime case of the success of a flat tax; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year.[16]

The Russian example is often used as proof of the validity of this analysis, despite an International Monetary Fund study in 2006 which found that there was no sign "of Laffer-type behavioral responses generating revenue increases from the tax cut elements of these reforms" in Russia or in other countries.[17]

Overall structure[edit]

Taxes other than the income tax (for example, taxes on sales and payrolls) tend to be regressive. Hence, making the income tax flat could result in a regressive overall tax structure. Under such a structure, those with lower incomes tend to pay a higher proportion of their income in total taxes than the affluent do. The fraction of household income that is a return to capital (dividends, interest, royalties, profits of unincorporated businesses) is positively correlated with total household income.[citation needed] Hence a flat tax limited to wages would seem to leave the wealthy better off. Modifying the tax base can change the effects. A flat tax could be targeted at income (rather than wages), which could place the tax burden equally on all earners, including those who earn income primarily from returns on investment. Tax systems could utilize a flat sales tax to target all consumption, which can be modified with rebates or exemptions to remove regressive effects (such as the proposed Fair Tax in the U.S.[18]).

Border adjustable[edit]

A flat tax system and income taxes overall are not inherently border-adjustable; meaning the tax component embedded into products via taxes imposed on companies (including corporate taxes and payroll taxes) are not removed when exported to a foreign country (see Effect of taxes and subsidies on price). Taxation systems such as a sales tax or value added tax can remove the tax component when goods are exported and apply the tax component on imports. The domestic products could be at a disadvantage to foreign products (at home and abroad) that are border-adjustable, which would impact the global competitiveness of a country. However, it's possible that a flat tax system could be combined with tariffs and credits to act as border adjustments (the proposed Border Tax Equity Act in the U.S. attempts this). Implementing an income tax with a border adjustment tax credit is a violation of the World Trade Organization agreement. Tax exemptions (allowances) on low income wages, a component of most income tax systems could mitigate this issue for high labour content industries like textiles that compete Globally.

In a subsequent section, various proposals for flat tax-like schemes are discussed, these differ mainly on how they approach with the following issues of deductions, defining income, and policy implementation.

Recent proposals[edit]

Flat tax proposals have made something of a "comeback" in recent years. In the United States, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and FreedomWorks[19] have sought support for the flat tax (Taxpayer Choice Act). In other countries, flat tax systems have also been proposed, largely as a result of flat tax systems being introduced in several countries of the former Eastern Bloc, where it is generally thought to have been successful, although this assessment has been disputed (see below).[20]

The countries that have recently reintroduced flat taxes have done so largely in the hope of boosting economic growth. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have had flat taxes of 24%, 25% and 33% respectively with a tax exempt amount, since the mid-1990s. On 1 January 2001, a 13% flat tax on personal income took effect in Russia. Ukraine followed Russia with a 13% flat tax in 2003, which later increased to 15% in 2007. Slovakia introduced a 19% flat tax on most taxes (that is, on corporate and personal income, for VAT, etc., almost without exceptions) in 2004. Romania introduced a 16% flat tax on personal income and corporate profit on 1 January 2005. Macedonia introduced a 12% flat tax on personal income and corporate profit on 1 January 2007 and promised to cut it to 10% in 2008.[21] Albania has implemented a 10% flat tax from 2008.[22] Bulgaria applies flat tax rate of 10% for corporate profits and personal income tax since 2008.[23]

In the United States, while the Federal income tax is progressive, eight states — Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah — tax household incomes at a single rate, ranging from 3.07% (Pennsylvania) to 5.8% (North Carolina). Pennsylvania even has a pure flat tax with no zero-bracket amount.

Paul Kirchhof, who was suggested as the next finance minister of Germany in 2005, proposed introducing a flat tax rate of 25% in Germany as early as 2001, which sparked widespread controversy. Some claim the German tax system is the most complex one in the world.[24]

On 27 September 2005, the Dutch Council of Economic Advisors recommended a flat rate of 40% for income tax in the Netherlands.[25] Some deductions would be allowed, and persons over 65 years of age would be taxed at a lower rate.

In the United States, proposals for a flat tax at the federal level have emerged repeatedly in recent decades during various political debates. Jerry Brown, former and current Democratic Governor of California, made the adoption of a flat tax part of his platform when running for President of the United States in 1992. At the time, rival Democratic candidate Tom Harkin ridiculed the proposal as having originated with the "Flat Earth Society". Four years later, Republican candidate Steve Forbes proposed a similar idea as part of his core platform. Although neither captured his party's nomination, their proposals prompted widespread debate about the current U.S. income tax system.

Flat tax plans that are presently being advanced in the United States also seek to redefine "sources of income"; current progressive taxes count interest, dividends and capital gains as income, for example, while Steve Forbes's variant of the flat tax would apply to wages only.[26]

In 2005, Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, stated he had a plan to implement a flat tax in Washington, D.C..[27] This version is one flat rate of 15% on all earned income. Unearned income (in particular capital gains) would be exempt. His plan also calls for an exemption of $30,000 per family and $25,000 for singles. Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott stated he supports it and would add a $5,000 credit for first time home buyers and exemptions for out of town businesses.[citation needed] DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's position seems unclear, however DC mayor Anthony Williams has stated he is "open" to the idea.[citation needed]

Flat taxes have also been considered in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Party. In September 2005, George Osborne, then in opposition, said that while he was "fully conscious that we may not be able to introduce a pure flat tax, we may be able to move towards simpler and flatter taxes."[28] However, it was roundly rejected by Gordon Brown, then the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it was "An idea that they say is sweeping the world, well sweeping Estonia, well a wing of the neo-conservatives in Estonia", and criticised it thus: "The millionaire to pay exactly the same tax rate as the young nurse, the home help, the worker on the minimum wage".[29]

In Italy, during the 2018 electoral campaigns the right-wing coalition strongly proposed the introduction of a new flat tax, ranging from 15 to 23%.

Around the world[edit]

Countries that have flat tax systems[edit]

These are countries, as well as minor jurisdictions with the autonomous power to tax, that have adopted tax systems that are commonly described in the media and the professional economics literature as a flat tax. In some countries different rates apply to different kinds of income, the main rate for personal income is shown below.

  No personal income tax
  Flat personal income tax
Country or territory Flat tax rate
 Abkhazia[30] 10%
 Belarus[31] 13%
 Belize[32] 25%
 Bolivia[31] 13%
 Bosnia and Herzegovina[33][34] 10%
 Bulgaria[31][35] 10%
 East Timor[36] 10%
 Estonia[37] 20%
 Georgia[31][38][39] 20%
 Greenland[40] 36 to 44% (depending on the municipality)
 Guernsey[31][41] 20%
 Hungary[31] 15%
 Jamaica[31] 25%
 Jersey[31][42] 20%
 Kazakhstan[31][43] 10%
 Kyrgyzstan[41][44] 10%
 Lithuania[31][38][45] 15%
 Madagascar[46] 20%
 Mauritius[31][41] 15%
 Mongolia[47] 10%
 Nagorno-Karabakh[48] 5%
 Romania[31][38] 16%
 Russia[31][38][49] 13%
 Seychelles[31] 15%
 South Ossetia[50] 12%
 Transnistria[51] 10%
 Trinidad and Tobago[31] 25%
 Turkmenistan[52] 10%
 Tuvalu[53] 30%

U.S. states[edit]

At the federal level, the United States taxes personal income at progressive rates. Most states also tax income, most of them also at progressive rates, but some use a flat tax rate.

  No state income tax on individuals
  Flat state income tax on individuals
State or province Flat tax rate
 Colorado[54] 4.63%
 Illinois[54][55] 4.95%
 Indiana[54][56] 3.58 to 6.61% (depending on the county)
 Massachusetts[54] 5.1%
 Michigan[54][57] 4.25 to 6.65% (depending on the city)
 New Hampshire[54] 5% on dividend and interest income
 North Carolina[54][58] 5.499%
 Pennsylvania[54][59] 3.07 to 6.9607% (depending on the municipality) on income from work
3.07% on other income
 Tennessee[54][60] 3% on dividend and interest income
 Utah[54] 5%

Jurisdictions reputed to have a flat tax[edit]

  •  Anguilla does not have a general income tax,[61] but since 2011 it imposes an "interim stabilisation levy" on salaries, composed of a portion paid by the employer and another paid by the employee through withholding. Each portion has a flat rate of 3%.[62] This tax is in addition to a mandatory contribution to social security.[63]
  •  The British Virgin Islands do not have a general income tax,[64] but impose a payroll tax on salaries, composed of a portion paid by the employer and another paid by the employee through withholding. The employee portion has a flat rate of 8%.[65] This tax is in addition to mandatory contributions to social security and national health insurance.[66][67]
  •  Hong Kong: Some sources claim that Hong Kong has a flat tax,[68] though its salary tax structure has several different rates ranging from 2% to 17% after deductions.[69] Taxes are capped at 15% of gross income, so this rate is applied to upper income returns if taxes would exceed 15% of gross otherwise.[70] Accordingly, Duncan B. Black of Media Matters for America, says "Hong Kong's 'flat tax' is better described as an 'alternative maximum tax.'" [71] Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute similarly notes that Hong Kong's "tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive."[72] Hong Kong has, nevertheless, a flat profit tax regime.
  •  Saudi Arabia does not have a general income tax, but it imposes zakat (wealth tax) on the business assets of residents who are nationals of GCC countries, and income tax on the business income of residents who are not nationals of GCC countries and of nonresidents. Zakat has a flat rate of 2.5%, and income tax has a flat rate of 20%.[73]

Countries that had a flat tax in the past[edit]

  •  Albania introduced a flat tax of 10% on personal income in 2008, and replaced it with two rates of 13% and 23% in 2014.[74][75]
  •  Czech Republic introduced a flat tax of 15% on personal income in 2008, and a second higher rate of 22% in 2013.[76]
  •  Grenada had a flat tax of 30% on personal income until 2014, when it introduced a second lower rate of 15%.[77]
  •  Guyana had a flat tax of 30% on personal income until 2017, when it replaced it with progressive rates of 28% and 40%.[78]
  •  Iceland introduced a flat tax on personal income in 2007, at a national rate of 22.75%. With the additional municipal rate, the total tax rate was up to 36%.[79] In 2010, Iceland replaced its flat tax system with progressive national rates of 24.1% to 33%, for a combined (national and municipal) top rate of 46.28%.[80]
  •  Latvia introduced a flat tax of 25% on personal income in 1997.[81] The rate was changed to 23% in 2009, 26% in 2010, 25% in 2011, 24% in 2013, and 23% in 2015.[82] In 2018, Latvia replaced its flat tax with progressive rates of 20%, 23% and 31.4%.[83]
  •  Macedonia introduced a flat tax of 12% on personal income in 2007, reduced to 10% in 2008.[41][84] In 2019, it introduced a second higher rate of 18% on salaries, and increased the flat tax rate on investment income to 15%.[85]
  •  Montenegro introduced a flat tax of 15% on personal income in 2007, reduced to 12% in 2009 and 9% in 2010.[86] It introduced a second higher rate of 15% on salaries in 2013, reduced to 13% in 2015 and 11% in 2016.[87][88]
  •  Saint Helena introduced a flat tax of 25% on personal income in 2012, and replaced it with two rates of 26% and 31% in 2015.[89][90]
  •  Slovakia introduced a flat tax of 19% on personal income in 2004, and a second higher rate of 25% in 2013.[76]
  •  Ukraine introduced a flat tax of 13% on personal income in 2004, increased to 15% in 2007, and introduced a second higher rate of 17% in 2011.[91][92][93] The second rate was increased to 20% in 2015, and the first rate was increased to 18% in 2016.[94][95]

Countries considering a flat tax system[edit]

These are countries where concrete flat tax proposals are being considered by influential politicians or political parties.

  •  Italy: During the 2018 electoral campaigns, the right-wing coalition strongly proposed the introduction of a new flat tax, ranging from 15% to 23%.[96]

Eastern Europe[edit]

  Countries that have flat taxes
  Countries considering flat taxes
  Countries that had flat taxes

Advocates of the flat tax argue that the former communist states of Eastern Europe have benefited from the adoption of a flat tax. Some of these nations have experienced strong economic growth of 6% and higher throughout the early 2000s,[97] particularly the Baltic countries, who experience exceptional GDP growth of around 10% yearly. Some argue that other factors, primarily the advent of capitalist economic systems and rapid market expansion after Soviet (communist) domination explain the rapid growth. Some argue that economic growth in these countries would likely have occurred regardless of the chosen tax system.

  • Lithuania, which levies a flat tax rate of 15% (previously 20%) on its citizens, has experienced -15.8%, +1.3%, and +5.8% change in GDP from 2009-2011. The growth in 2011 is listed as being high compared to other nations in the region and 46th globally.[98] The unemployment rate of 15.4% is listed as higher than 151 other nations [98] and the inflation rate of 4.1% is greater than 103 other currencies including that of the European Union [98]
  • In Estonia, which has had a flat tax since 1994 (rate has been 20% since 2015, and used to be 21-26%),[99] studies have shown that the significant increase in tax revenue experienced was caused partly by a disproportionately rising VAT revenue.[100] Moreover, Estonia and Slovakia have high social contributions, pegged to wage levels.[100] Both matters raise questions regarding the justice of the flat tax system, and thus its long-term political sustainability.[101] The Estonian economist and former chairman of his country's parliamentary budget committee Olev Raju, stated in September 2005 that "income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder – this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election".[102] However, this did not happen, because after the 2007 elections a right-wing coalition was formed which stated its will to keep the flat tax in existence. However, critics argue that the tax rates these countries have are actually more progressive than flat.[103]
  • Hungary introduced a flat tax at 16% on 1 January 2011.[104]
  • According to a 2010 study[105] published in the Brussels newspaper L'Anglophone, the tax burden for typical workers in Central and Eastern Europe's "flat tax" countries is slightly higher (40.3% versus 40.2% of the total cost of employment) than that of the progressive systems elsewhere in the EU. "Slovakia has a “flat tax” rate of 19%," wrote the authors,[106] "but its employers pay a 35.2% contribution to social security (higher than the 34.8% in Belgium) and, in addition to the flat income tax, employees have 13.4% deducted for social security (also higher than the 13.07% in Belgium)," adding that a typical Slovak worker's Tax Freedom Day is a day later than a Finnish worker's. Slovakia reintroduced progressive tax rates in 2013.[76]

See also[edit]

Economic Concepts

Tax Systems


  1. ^ Hoover Institution – Books – The Flat Tax Archived 23 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine.
  2. ^ U.S. Social Security Administration, at [1].
  3. ^ Are Payroll Taxes Regressive The Economist.
  4. ^ a b c See for example the flat tax resources at idebate.org
  5. ^ "When Is a Dividend Deductible?". CFO.
  6. ^ "Publication 936 (2014), Home Mortgage Interest Deduction".
  7. ^ For example the ENERGYSTAR tax credit
  8. ^ As a recent example, transaction costs to damp speculation proposed by James Tobin, winner of the 1972 Nobel prize in economics, were recently (2009) proposed to the G20 by British PM Gordon brown as a way to prevent international currency speculation. Krugman
  9. ^ "Corporations | Internal Revenue Service". www.irs.gov. Retrieved 12 November 2017.
  10. ^ Herman Cain's 9-9-9 flat tax variation Archived 26 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine..
  11. ^ E.D> Kleinbart, An analysis of Herman Cain's 999 plan, Social Science Research Center, 2011.
  12. ^ The diminishing marginal utility means that the number of units of additional 'happiness' afforded by an extra unit of additional money, decreases as one spends more money. [2]
  13. ^ Hall, Robert; Rabushka, Alvin (2007). "Appendix: A Flat-Tax Law". The Flat Tax (PDF) (2nd ed.). Hoover Press. ISBN 9780817993115.
  14. ^ "The flat-tax revolution". The Economist. 14 April 2005.
  15. ^ "The case for flat taxes". The Economist. 14 April 2005.
  16. ^ The Flat Tax at Work in Russia: Year Three, Alvin Rabushka, Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry, www.russianeconomy.org, 26 April 2004
  17. ^ The "Flat Tax(es)": Principles and Evidence
  18. ^ Boortz, Neal; Linder, John (2006). The Fair Tax Book (Paperback ed.). Regan Books. ISBN 0-06-087549-6.
  19. ^ Phillips, Michael M. (16 May 2008). "Mortgage Bailout Infuriates Tenants (And Steve Forbes)". The Wall Street Journal.
  20. ^ Flat-Tax Comeback Bruce Bartlett, National Review, 10 November 2003
  21. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20070224012548/http://www.investinmacedonia.org/news.aspx?news=35. Archived from the original on 24 February 2007. Retrieved 6 June 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  22. ^ Albanian government to implement flat tax (SETimes.com) Archived 3 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
  23. ^ [3] Archived 24 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
  24. ^ "Taxes in Germany". www.internations.org. Retrieved 2017-11-14.
  25. ^ Evers, Michiel; De Mooij, Ruud; <!>van Vuuren, Daniel (2006-02-01). "What Explains the Variation in Estimates of Labour Supply Elasticities?". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.884430.
  26. ^ J. Fred Giertz and Timothy R. Watts, "The Flat Tax and the 1996 Presidential Campaign," Illinois Business Review, 52,1 (1995)
  27. ^ MEGHAN CLYNE. "D.C. May Be Flat Tax Laboratory".
  28. ^ "Osborne urges simpler tax system", BBC News, 7 September 2005
  29. ^ Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour party conference 26 September 2005
  30. ^ Law on the income tax on individuals, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Abkhazia. (in Russian)
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Worldwide Personal Tax and Immigration Guide, Ernst & Young.
  32. ^ Law Revision Commissioner (2003). "INCOME AND BUSINESS TAX ACT CHAPTER 55" (PDF). Belize Law. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
  33. ^ Law on income tax, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (in Bosnian), (in Croatian), (in Serbian)
  34. ^ Bosnia and Herzegovina Tax Rates, TaxRates.cc.
  35. ^ Bulgarian parliament approves 2008 budget that foresees record 3 percent surplus, The Associated Press.
  36. ^ A guide for income taxpayers, Ministry of Finance of East Timor, 30 June 1905.
  37. ^ Estonia Highlights 2016, Deloitte.
  38. ^ a b c d Michael Keen, Yitae Kim, and Ricardo Varsano. "The 'Flat Tax(es)': Principles and Evidence." IMF Working Paper WP/06/218.[4]
  39. ^ Alvin Rabushka. "The Flat Tax Spreads to Georgia." 3 January 2005
  40. ^ Tax rates 2016/2017, Tax Agency of Greenland.
  41. ^ a b c d Alvin Rabushka. "Flat and Flatter Taxes Continue to Spread Around the Globe." 16 January 2007."Archived copy". Archived from the original on 7 July 2007. Retrieved 24 June 2007.
  42. ^ http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication415_en.pdf
  43. ^ The Economist Intelligence Unit, Kazakhstan fact sheet. "In 2007 Kazakhstan introduced several changes to the taxation system. The flat-rate VAT on all goods was reduced from 15% to 14%, and a flat rate of income tax of 10% was introduced, in place of the previous progressive range of 5–20%." [5]
  44. ^ What should a foreigner know about Kyrgyzstan's tax system, The Times of Central Asia.
  45. ^ Alvin Rabushka. "A Competitive Flat Tax Spreads to Lithuania." 2 November 2005.[6]
  46. ^ Madagascar Fiscal Guide 2014/15, KPMG.
  47. ^ Alvin Rabushka. "The Flat Tax Spreads to Mongolia." 30 January 2007 Archived 26 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
  48. ^ The wannabe nation of Nagorno-Karabakh, The Christian Science Monitor, 30 May 2007.
  49. ^ "russiaeconomy.org".
  50. ^ "Law on the income tax on individuals" (in Russian). Committee on Taxes and Duties of the Republic of South Ossetia. Archived from the original on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 19 June 2017.
  51. ^ A Low Flat Tax Has Been Adopted in Pridnestrovie, Alvin Rabushka, 17 August 2007.
  52. ^ Lega and tax aspects of doing business in Turkmenistan 2009, Central Asia Business Consultants, 13 August 2009.
  53. ^ Income Tax Act 1992, Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute.
  54. ^ a b c d e f g h i j State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2017, Tax Foundation, 9 March 2017.
  55. ^ Income Tax Rates, Illinois Department of Revenue.
  56. ^ How to compute withholding for state and county income tax, Department of Revenue of Indiana, 1 January 2018.
  57. ^ What cities impose an income tax?, Michigan Department of Treasury.
  58. ^ North Carolina 2018 income tax withholding tables available, Form W-2/1099 filing reminders, Ernst & Young, 24 January 2018.
  59. ^ EIT / PIT / LST Tax Registers, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, 15 December 2017.
  60. ^ State Tax Changes That Took Effect on January 1, 2018, Tax Foundation, 2 January 2018.
  61. ^ Anguilla Highlights 2018, Deloitte.
  62. ^ Interim Stabilisation Levy, Inland Revenue Department of Anguilla.
  63. ^ Social Security Contributions, Anguilla Social Security Board.
  64. ^ British Virgin Islands Highlights 2018, Deloitte.
  65. ^ Payroll Tax, Government of the British Virgin Islands.
  66. ^ Registration and contribution, British Virgin Islands Social Security Board.
  67. ^ National Health Insurance, British Virgin Islands National Health Insurance.
  68. ^ Daniel Mitchell. "Fixing a Broken Tax System with a Flat Tax." Capitalism Magazine, 23 April 2004.[7]
  69. ^ "GovHK: Tax Rates of Salaries Tax & Personal Assessment". 24 June 2015.
  70. ^ Hong Kong Highlights 2015, Deloitte.
  71. ^ Duncan B. Black. "Fund wrong on Hong Kong 'flat tax'." Media Matters, 28 February 2005. [8]
  72. ^ Alan Reynolds. "Hong Kong's Excellent Taxes." townhall.com, but the column was syndicated. 6 June 2005. [9]
  73. ^ Worldwide Personal Tax and Immigration Guide 2017-18, Ernst & Young, September 2017.
  74. ^ The Flat Tax at Work in Albania: Year One, Alvin Rabushka, 21 January 2009.
  75. ^ Albania Abandons Its Flat Tax, Alvin Rabushka, 29 December 2013.
  76. ^ a b c Flat tax roundup December 2012, Alvin Rabushka, 29 December 2012.
  77. ^ Income Tax (Amendment) Order, 2014, Grenada Inland Revenue Division.
  78. ^ Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2017, Parliament of Guyana.
  79. ^ Iceland Comes in From the Cold With Flat Tax Revolution, The Business, 21 March 2007.
  80. ^ Iceland abandons the flat tax, Alvin Rabushka, 16 March 2010.
  81. ^ Flat tax reforms, 4liberty.eu, 6 March 2013.
  82. ^ Janis Grasis and Juris Bojārs, "Necessity of the introduction of the progressive income tax system: A case of Latvia", Economics, Social Sciences and Information Management, March 2015.
  83. ^ Latvian parliament adopts tax reform, Tax-News, 3 August 2017.
  84. ^ "The lowest flat corporate and personal income tax rates." Invest Macedonia government web site. Retrieved 6 June 2007. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 24 February 2007. Retrieved 6 June 2007.
  85. ^ Macedonia: Changes in the tax legislation, Lexology, 28 December 2018.
  86. ^ The Flat Tax Spreads to Montenegro, Alvin Rabushka, 13 April 2007.
  87. ^ Montenegro: Crisis tax, International Tax Review, 25 March 2015.
  88. ^ Crisis tax also in 2016; the tax rate decreased to 11%, Cafe del Montenegro, 14 November 2015.
  89. ^ St. Helena Adopts a 25% Flat Tax, Alvin Rabushka, 3 November 2013.
  90. ^ Income Tax Ordinance, Government of Saint Helena.
  91. ^ The Flat Tax Spreads to Ukraine, Alvin Rabushka, 27 May 2003.
  92. ^ Income tax rate to inch up in 2007, Kyiv Post, 5 October 2006.
  93. ^ Ukraine: Overview of the new tax code, U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, 7 December 2010.
  94. ^ Ukraine Tax Reform 2015, Specht & Partner.
  95. ^ Ukrainian tax reform 2016 overview, Lexology, 30 December 2015.
  96. ^ Berlusconi ally proposes 23 percent flat tax to stimulate Italy, Reuters, 2 February 2018.
  97. ^ Goyette, Brayden (November 8, 2011). "Flat Taxes Are Big in the Former USSR. Have They Worked?". ProPublica. Retrieved November 14, 2017.
  98. ^ a b c "The World Factbook".
  99. ^ Tax rates, Tax and Customs Board of Estonia, 27 June 2016.
  100. ^ a b ZEIT ONLINE GmbH, Hamburg, Germany (1 September 2005). "Steuern: Niedrige Steuer für alle". ZEIT ONLINE.
  101. ^ Pomerleau, Kyle (September 29, 2014). "Estonia has the Most Competitive Tax System in the OECD". Tax Foundation. Retrieved November 14, 2017.
  102. ^ Tenbrock, Christian (1 September 2005). "Niedrige Steuer für alle. Osteuropa: Einige Länder haben die Einheitssteuer. Doch sie ist umstritten". zeit.de (in German). Retrieved 2 February 2012.
  103. ^ "Transition Economies".
  104. ^ [10]
  105. ^ Wages and Taxes for the "Average Joe" in the EU 27
  106. ^ "L'Anglophone".


External links[edit]