Intellectual Property - including Copyright,
Patent and Trademark - are all GOVERNMENT GRANTED MONOPOLIES. They would not exist in a
totally free market. All IP revenue is therefore directly due to government support and intervention in the markets.

IP-based companies are also notorious for
evading US taxes by readily moving their IP to a non-US tax haven. Google, GE, etc
all do this.

How about a SALES TAX on ALL IP.
For example, a 25 % IP Sales tax would
probably raise well over 3 Trillion in 10 years.

Unlike a conventional sales tax, an Intellectual Property sales tax is also progressive. First, because it taxes monopolies, from an microeconomic
analysis most of the costs would be
carried by the companies in terms of
reduced pre-tax prices, increased tax payments, and decreased monopoly rents.
Second, most IP spending is not for essentials like food, rent, water, heat, non-brand name clothing, etc, so whatever small component is actually carried by the public will be progressive. Many IP monopoly holders in fact intentionally charge US customers more for the exact same textbook, DVD, movie, software, clothing, computer and medication than they charge for the IDENTICAL item overseas - so clearly, they can reduce their US price to absorb the tax avoid losing US customers. Finally, and importantly, an IP sales tax would tax
ALL IP sold in the US - not just IP produced or owned in the US - this would greatly widen the tax base and make sure that non-US (and US) companies that are profiting from the US marketplace help
pay their fair share of taxes. (Conventional
taxes like income taxes and payroll taxes actually penalize US workers and reduce their international competitiveness).

How about a special Sales tax ON all Intellectual Property ?

Why have I never heard this discussed in policy circles ???

There is a "sin" tax on cigarettes and alcohol. Why not a "sin" tax on greed?

If you want a coherent explanation of current flat-tax proposals, just read Robert Reich's take on them...

http://robertreich.org/post/11753807617

Can you explain the greatly increased tax on ELECTRICITY that just occurred in Greece--seems like a great idea to keep people from using too much electricity, and the rich use more of it than the poor, so it makes a lot of sense.

Can you explain the greatly increased tax on ELECTRICITY that just occurred in Greece--seems like a great idea to keep people from using too much electricity, and the rich use more of it than the poor, so it makes a lot of sense.

Flat tax puts the onus on lower income vs. upper income that control leavers of power. Elastic tax structures with spending priorities are required at the start of fiscal year based on anticipated tax revenue, loopholes prohibited. Constitution provides for extruding funding like war or catastrophes that require debate and majority approval and presidential signature.

The Fair Tax is an unrealistic and unfunded tax program for several reasons. Since sales taxes are regressive (takes more in % from poor and middle-class then the rich since there are more of them) the fair tax sends a monthly check to those in the lower tax brackets. Not only does this require major government oversight to track everyone's income and the plan doesn't account for the increased spending of monthly checks in it's revenue.
Most importantly! 23% is inaccurate and insufficient: Congress's committee on Taxation has already concluded that the national retail sales tax would have to be much, MUCH higher than 23%. AKA 30%. They found that the rate would have to be 36% (inclusive rate) or 57% exclusive rate (that's if you eliminate the current sales taxes on goods and services) in order to cover costs. But then the Treasury Department calculated that an increase of 34% is needed JUST to cover Income Tax. And that's not including payroll taxes. So the number grows even higher!!! And this is assuming the states would be 100% honest in their federal returns which is highly unlikely. So then you have to incur some margin for error in the increase sales tax. So the number grows even HIGHER!!!

Capitalism and "we are all in it together"
are not compatible.

Is there any connection between the reduction of income taxes for the rich and our skyrocketing property taxes

Most people seem to act as if their taxes to the Federal government just fall into a black hole. This money gets spent, doesn't it? And so likely helps the economy that way.

Money needs to move around for a vibrant economy, and there are lots of ways to keep it moving.

Why isn't the alternative minumum tax adjusted based on the geographic location of where the taxpayer lives? It costs more to live NYC than the rest of the country (housing, rent, food, transportation, child care, etc). A study 2 yrs ago by the Center for an Urban Future stated that it takes more than a six figure income to be considered middle class in NYC. Other than moving to another part of the country, how to we resolve this inequity?

Where did the alternative minimum tax idea come from? Doesn't this overemphasize a progressive tax for those who do not receive benifits
from capital gains.

Are you covering Henry George's SINGLE TAX (on land)?

Great questions, incomplete answers. Which countries do have a flat tax? Your guest said they work rather well. What does that mean? Examples please.

Why not - a progressive, no loophole flat tax?

First 100k - 15%

Second 100k - 20% etc?

I live on Long Island and we have a sales tax of 8.5%

Under the 9-9-9 plan would we still have to pay this local sales tax?

If so, that would effectively make it a 9 - 9 - 9 - 8.5 flat tax; that's almost 40% !

The problem is curved tax in that EG Buffett says he pays less than his secretary. Progressive tax for sure. Flat and Progressive - a line, not curve, tilted up.

I loved the idea of a flat tax until I discovered the Fair Tax as explained on the website fairtax.org

Is Mr. Thorndike familiar with this plan and care to comment on it?

There is no 'right' or 'left' in this issue, better to describe flat tax as fair or populist, and the 'progressive tax as 'called fair', and elitist.

Elitism has no right or left, both 'sides' get get manipulated by it

Flat tax is regressive.
The poor pay a larger percent of their income, the rich pay less.

Right now in the 'progressive' system we have - the top 20% in wealthy individuals pay 70% of the income taxes.

Equal opportunity means everyone pays the same percentage and then everyone has the same stake in government, meaning we'd have more of a small 'd' democratic government.

Jerry Brown advocated a flat tax when he was running for president. Was it considered a left-wing idea at the time, & if so, how did it become a right-wing one?

It is my understanding with the Perry plan the middle class would actually pay more in taxes with Flat Taxes than they are now.

I remember vividly reading my first chapter of my advanced tax text while studying at MSU.

Taxes were described as having two purposes:

1) to raise revenue
2) to direct public policy i.e. tax deductibility of mortgage interest to spur home purchase/ownership.

How would a flat tax impact the second purpose?

Thorndike is obviously an elitist, who feels lawyers and accountants should be the only ones who can understand and do our taxes for us. He also believes the rich should pay more tax (and thus have more influence over government) and works for a liberal think tank in Washington, and his hence, against a flat tax.

Why not have pro and con flat tax guests to pose point and counterpoint?

Maybe because WNYC is only interested in left wing propaganda.