Would you like your tax return on a postcard, with no more calculation involved than simple arithmetic accomplished by even the simplest of calculators? Do you feel that you spend more money than it's worth during tax season in order to get your refund? Do you feel that the government's income tax system is overly complicated and unfair? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you may be ready for a flat tax system, meaning that everyone pays the same percentage of their income for federal income tax. More inside...

Would you like your tax return on a postcard, with no more calculation involved than simple arithmetic accomplished by even the simplest of calculators? Do you feel that you spend more money than it's worth during tax season in order to get your refund? Do you feel that the government's income tax system is overly complicated and unfair? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you may be ready for a flat tax system, meaning that everyone pays the same percentage of their income for federal income tax.

The flat tax movement has developed slowly thus far, mostly due to the fact that for a while its chief figurehead has been rich guy Steve Forbes, who besides being about as interesting as a wet blanket, gives the impression that he's just running for President for fun. Forbes doesn't inspire anyone but his investors, and for the movement to gain credibility it needs a more viable public face. A flat tax system seems too "out there" and liberal to the American voting public, who are used to being bossed around by Washington and tend to be leery of change, no matter if the change makes sense.

So why does the system make sense? There are many reasons. The major one is that under the current flat tax proposal, spearheaded in Congress by House Majority Leader Dick Armey, the first $35,400 of income is tax-free. The stated reason for this is to stimulate economic growth by increasing an individual's disposable income. Therefore, a family with a household income of $45,000 pays the flat tax on only $9,600. That is a major economic stimulant, which can affect our economy in a great number of ways; paying for college, or even investing the money on Wall Street, for example. Wealthier families would have more taxable income, but they would pay the same flat rate. No more tax brackets or other familiar jargon.

President Bush scored some points with his "refund adjustment" in which he mailed us checks for $300. However, that is a pittance compared to what we'd all be getting back under the flat tax system. Most Americans care only for their bottom line, and the bottom line here is that they will be treated fairly. How much more fair could a tax system be?

Another reason the proposed system helps is that it simplifies our tax code. Currently, our tax code is many thousands of pages long, and our federal government pays lawyers billions of dollars each year simply to interpret it. With our government so heavily in debt, it seems rather frivolous to justify such an expenditure. There are 480 separate forms, and another 280 whose purpose is to explain those forms. And besides, the correct amount is never taken out of your paycheck; you either get money back or pay more because it's quite a rare instance in which the two sides end up dead even. The flat tax allows one to predict accurately what will be the yearly tax burden.

Social Security would not be taxed under the current proposal, and it shouldn't. We currently are being taxed on money that we are forced to contribute to Social Security by law. Talk about double jeopardy! And you hear all the time how that money has been so badly mismanaged that we are unlikely to see a single dime of it by the time we retire. Thus, our federal government is simply taking that money from us – twice – and calling it something else.

Under the current proposal, the flat tax rate would be 17% on income starting at the $35,400 level. That goes for businesses, too, but only on their profits. Armey's group maintains that there is little risk in politicians changing the percentage at a later date, since the country would be united against such a change given the fact that they're all being dealt with fairly. This makes some sense in a vacuum, but you've got to think that members of special-interest lobbies and government lawyers who are now out of jobs would probably object. Still, the idea is quite intriguing.

And I'd like to go a step further and eliminate the capital gains tax. People should be encouraged to invest money in America's businesses – it's the essence of a free-market economy. Our government has too many hands in too many pockets. It doesn't need to be so big, anyway. So many government businesses could be privatized and thus run more smoothly, which would serve to further stimulate our economy. Of course the economy is currently in the toilet – it's climbing back up a hill pulling a full load of Grade-A Washington manure. But, I am no politician, and I don't think I'd be all that good at it anyway.

Will the bill pass? I hope so, but realistically it is difficult to imagine it happening. It would put a lot of government sycophants – lobbyists and lawyers, mostly – out of work, a prospect not likely to be taken lying down. The American political climate is self-serving and resistant to change, particularly change that will alter the lifestyles of those who have been getting fat off the taxpayer. Companies producing and selling tax software would have to close shop, and seasonal tax accountants would be out of business.

But is that a bad thing? Progress is the most important of human endeavors. And not just progress for the sake of progress, but progress for the sake of American citizens. Believe me, this will be a hotly debated topic in the years to come. You'll know who's getting rich off your tax payments – the most vociferous objections will come from them. And it will take a while to even get this proposal as far as a vote because it would take the government two years just to change a light bulb, but at least someone up there seems to actually care about the economic state of its constituency.

~~~~~

Zak Billmeier grew up in Vermont and Maine, and currently resides in Atlanta, GA. He graduated from Mary Washington College with a B.A. in geography in 1997. At Mary Washington, he was an infielder on the baseball team, the editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper, and a public address announcer at other sporting events. He is a rabid Boston-area sports fan. Also an active musician, he plays the bass for the little-known Atlanta band The Shadowridge Runners. His interests include sports, music, painting, reading, writing and photography.